effects of bypass system passage at bonneville dam … · effects of bypass system passage at...
TRANSCRIPT
Fish Ecology Division
Northwest Fisheries
Science Center
National Marine
Fisheries Service
Seattle, Washington
Effects of bypass system passage at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse on downstream migrant salmon and steelhead; direct capture assessment, 1990-1992
by Earl M. Dawley, Lyle G. Gilbreath , Richard D. Ledgerwood, Paul J. Bentley, and Benjamin P. Sandford
December 1998
EFFECTS OF BYPASS SYSTEM PASSAGE AT BONNEVILLE DAM SECOND
POWERHOUSE ON DOWNSTREAM MIGRANT SALMON AND STEELHEAD; DIRECT CAPTURE ASSESSMENT, 1990-1992
by
Earl M. Dawley Lyle G. Gilbreath
Richard D. Ledgerwood Paul J. Bentley
and Benjamin P. Sandford
Final Report of Research
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Contract DACW57-85-H-0001)
and
Fish Ecology Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112-2097
December 1998
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Passage survival tests at Bonneville Dam using coded-wire-tagged subyearling chinook
salmon, from 1987 to 1992, indicated substantially poorer survival for fish using the bypass
systems than other passage routes through the dam. In 1990, we began research designed
to identify conditions and physical features of the bypass system at the Bonneville Dam
Second Powerhouse which debilitated or injured juvenile salmonids during passage.
Marked fish were released into the bypass system and then captured at the terminus of the
discharge conduit using a trap-net. Fish were immediately evaluated for stress and injury.
Results from the aggregate of tests conducted in 1990 and 1991 showed few consistent
adverse passage effects except that descaling of river-run coho and yearling chinook salmon
was high (8.5-28.6%). Although less definitive, injury and mortality were greater than
expected for both hatchery and river-run subyearling chinook salmon. There were no
obvious detrimental impacts to hatchery steelhead, yearling chinook salmon, or coho salmon
released, only minor scale loss and low percentages of injury, mortality, and delayed
mortality.
In late 1991, tests were conducted at low tailwater elevation to assess worst-case
effects; i.e., greatest water velocity and greatest shear forces at the pipe terminus. Results
of those tests showed markedly increased descaling and mortality. Through further testing
in 1992, it became apparent that descaling and impingement were occurring in conjunction
· with capture of test fish and impacts from bypass passage could not be separated from
impacts occurring during trap-net recovery of test fish. We believe that differences of
descaling and mortality between release groups within individual tests did provide relative
iv
comparisons of stress and fatigue related to the various flow conditions and sections of the
bypass encountered by the test fish.
We concluded that injury and mortality of test fish was not occurring during passage
through the bypass system at the Second Powerhouse. However, we believe passage
through the bypass system caused stress and fatigue in juvenile migrants, and could
contribute to diminished predator avoidance. Additionally, we know that northern
pikeminnow predation is particularly intense at the outlet of the bypass system. Therefore,
we speculate that I) the point source release from the bypass discharge conduit allows for
increased predation; 2) migration through the low velocity tailrace basin results in increased
predation; and 3) the location of the bypass outlet on the north side of the tailrace in
conjunction with the southward bend in the river tends to direct outmigrants shoreward
toward rip-rap areas that are prime habitat for northern pikeminnow.
V
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
Passage Route Survival Comparisons ....................................................... 3 Perceived Problems of the Bypass System ................................................. 6
METHODS ........................................................................................... 8 Structural Features of the Bypass System .................................................. 8 Trap-Net and Recovery System ............................................................ 11 Experimental Design ......................................................................... 13
1990-1991, Tests at Low and Moderate Tailwater Elevations ..................... 14 1992, Tests at Low Tailwater Elevations ............................................ 15
Test Fish ....................................................................................... 16 Marking Procedures .......................................................................... 16 Release Sites and Procedures ............................................................... 18 Turbine and Fishway Operating Requirements ........................................... 20 Recovery and Evaluation Procedures ...................................................... 21 Stress Evaluation ............................. ." ............................................... 21
November 1990 ......................................................................... 21 April and May 1991 .................................................................... 22 July 1991 ................................................................................ 23
Statistical Procedures ........................................................................ 23 RESULTS .......................................................................................... 24
Preliminary Tests ............................................................................. 24 1991 Tests .................................................................................... 26
Moderate Tail water ........ ." ............................................................ 26 Low Tailwater ........................................................................... 30 Test Conditions that Affected Results ................................................ 35 Evaluation of Adverse Bypass Conditions ........................................... 36
1992 Tests at Low Tail water ................................................................ 37 Passage Effects at High vs. Low Downwell Water Surface Elevation ........... 37 Effects from Suspected Negative Pressures in the Short Radius Elbow ......... 37 Effects of Diminished Air Entrainment ............................................... 39 Effects from Operation with Full vs. Empty Fish Sampling Room Conduit .... 41 Effects from Passage Through Particular Segments of the Collection Channel . 41 Injuries Observed During Bypass Passage Tests ................................... 43
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 45 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 47 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................ 50 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 55
INTRODUCTION
The efficacy of bypass systems as a safe means of passing juvenile salmonids
( Oncorhynchus spp.) through dams has generally been established by site-specific testing.
Virtually all testing focused on the portion of the system beginning at interception of the
outmigrant juvenile salmonids by the submersible traveling screens and ending just prior to
release into a conduit or channel through which the fish were carried to the tailrace below
the dam. There have been few rigorous assessments of fish survival through an entire
bypass system from forebay to the tailrace or beyond at any dam. The principal constraint
in conducting such tests is the difficulty of obtaining an unbiased sample of fish exiting a
bypass system prior to their reaching the next downstream dam, where assessments become
complicated by the uncertainties of collection efficiency.
At Bonneville Dam, the lowermost hydroelectric project on the Columbia River,
approximately 157 km of free-flowing river separate the dam from an established sampling
station located at the head of the estuary at Jones Beach (River Kilometer 75; Fig. 1). A
history of over 20 years of sampling outmigrating juvenile salmon, using beach and purse
seines, demonstrated that an unbiased estimate can be made at Jones Beach (Dawl�y et al.
1986).
As the last dam on the Columbia River, Bonneville Dam is in the critical position of
passing more juvenile salmon than any other dam in the river; this alone is a compelling
reason for verifying assumed high passage survival. However, no thorough assessments of
passage survival were conducted at the dam after construction of the spillway flow
deflectors in 1975, the Second _Powerhouse in 1983, and the two downstream migrant
bypass systems in 1981 and 1984. Information specific to these separate passage routes
was needed for management of fish passage relative to power production.
2
Washington t
.�1\l N
......... , .... ""���!:, - �.-,.u/ ....
�·a�· ..... �.!:("1';;�·7·· ·:!l.,."-.'t'�•!'Y•.,.....-._ �:.
-�
Longview
1: ..,r
I I I I I I 0 25km
'Pt� ,_/ �
� Oregon
�\,e
���0
�--
�· .•. <if ',t
· Bonneville Dam
(RKm 234) \ ..
Figure 1. The lower Columbia River showing locations of Bonneville Dam, the estuarine sampling site at Jones Beach, Oregon. and the river mouth.
3
Passage Route Survival Comparisons
In 1987, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMF�) began a multi-year study in
cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to evaluate survival of
subyearling fall chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) passing Bonneville Dam. During June,
July, and August 1987 through 1990 and in 1992, groups of juvenile chinook salmon
marked with coded wire tags (CWT) were simultaneously released to pass Bonneville Dam
via the spillway, the Second Powerhouse turbines, or the bypass system (Fig. 2).
Additional releases were made in the Second Powerhouse tailrace at the downstream edge
of the turbine boil, at the First Powerhouse, and in mid-river downstream from the dam.
About nine million fish were tagged and released for these evaluations. Estimates of
short-term relative survival were based on recoveries of juveniles by beach and purse seines
in the estuary at Jones Beach, Oregon. Estimates of long-term relative survival were based
on recoveries of tagged adult fish from the fisheries and from hatchery returns.
The most striking finding of the Bonneville Survival Study was that differences in
estuarine recoveries of juvenile salmon from turbine and bypass release groups suggested
little survival benefit associated with the bypass system (Table 1; Dawley et al. 1993). In
the first two years (1987 and 1988), recoveries of bypass released groups were significantly
less than recoveries of turbine-released groups; mean differences were 10.8 and 13.6%. In
1989 and 1990, recoveries of bypass-released groups were also less (though not
significantly) than recoveries of turbine-released groups (mean differences were 3.3 and
2.5%, respectively). The difference between the first two and the following two years of
study may have been associated with lower river flow and resulting lower tailwater
� Tal·lrac� � Second
re ease�,, Powerhouse
\ /�\'-/'
.c... ��Upper turbine,lower turbineand bypass '
,. c}Z.
--<_ i''"
'o,
. � e, Spillway I \ system releases
Spillway rel�ase()._\
........_
\ . / ��� v �
0 Forebay
Figure 2. Schematic of Bonneville Dam and vicinity showing release locations for subyearling chinook salmon during 1987-1992 studies.
.i:,.
5
Table 1. Differences in relative survival between fish passing through the bypass systems and other passage routes at Bonneville Dam based upon juvenile recovery data from estuarine sampling.
Percent difference of bypass recoveries from indicated treatment' Release site/ Treatment 1987 1988 1989 1990 1992 Average
Turbine:
Tailrace:
Spillway:
Second Powerhouse Bypass
Released at the ceiling and mid-depth of the turbine intake. Passage through the turbine and through the Second Powerhouse tailrace.
-10.8* -13.6* -3.3
Released at the downstream side of turbine discharge boil. Passage through the Second Powerhouse tailrace.
-14.1 * -7.3 -3.6
Released 0.5 m above spillway crest. Passage over the spillway, through stilling basin and spillway tailrace.
-16.6*
Downstream: Released downstream from dam and tailraces at a swift-water site.
Turbine:
-23.1* -11.6*
First Powerhouse Bypass
Released at mid-depth of the turbine intake. Passage through the turbine and through the First Powerhouse tailrace.
-11.8*
Downstream: Released downstream from dam and tailraces at a swift-water site.
a Calculated using annual means for recovery percent of treatment groups, where: BY = bypass, and TR = other treatment groups/passage routes.
[(BY% - TR%)+ TR%] x 100.
-28.3*
b Only the mid-depth release site was used to provide increased numbers of replicates. * Statistically significant at P = 0.95.
-7.6*
-8.3*
-16.6*
-17.4*
-11.8*
-28.3*
6
elevation during the first two years. The lower tailwater elevation caused greater water
velocity (estimated at 8.1 m/second--0.5 m/second greater) within the 0.9-m diameter
bypass discharge conduit and increased turbulence and shear forces at the conduit terminus.
Comparisons of recovery differences between bypass and other release groups were
also made, but included fewer years of comparison (Table 1 ). Based on three years of
releases, the recoveries of bypass-released groups averaged 8.3% less than recoveries of
tailrace-released groups. From two years of releases, recoveries of bypass-released groups
averaged 17.4% less than recoveries of downstream-released groups. Based on data from a
single year (1989), bypass-released groups averaged 16.6% less thaD; spillway-released
groups. This latter comparison is noteworthy because the spillway has long been believed
to provide the safest passage and the bypass was assumed to be equivalent.
Results of adult recovery data are equivocal due to unexpectedly poor ocean survival
causing low adult return percentages; two years of data indicate bypass passage groups had
poorer survival than turbine passage groups and two years of data indicate the opposite.
None of the differences were statistically significant (P s; 0.05) with the low numbers of
recovery (Gilbreath, et al 1993, Gilbreath in preparation).
Perceived Problems of the Bypass System
The original design and location of the bypass outlet were engineered to provide the
best possible protection for outmigrants against predation by birds and fish. The discharge
end of the 0.9-m diameter bypass conduit is a teardrop-shaped cement monolith projecting
9 m upward from the river bottom to the outlet at 7-14 m below the. tailwater surface. The
monolith is located in relatively high velocity water 76 m downstream from the dam, 85 m
from the north shore, and 30 m downstream from the turbine discharge boil. The river
7
bottom at the outlet site is smooth and the distance from any geologic relief was thought to
eliminate predator sanctuary areas near the egressing juvenile salmon.
However, results of the aforementioned passage survival tests prompted a change of
research objectives to focus on the apparent detrimental impacts to outmigrating juvenile
salmon using the bypass system. Decreased survival may have been a consequence of
either physical damage occurring during passage through the system, increased predation
after egress from the bypass discharge conduit, or a combination of both.
Studies of northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in the tailrace of
Bonneville Dam indicated greater predation on fish egressing from the bypass system than
from other locations at the dam. Ward et al. (1992) stated that trolling with lures at the
bypass outlet produced the highest catches of northern pikeminnow--substantially higher
than any other location in the forebay or tailrace of the dam. In 1990, when passage
survival tests were conducted, greater percentages of bypass fish were consumed by
northern pikeminnow than tailrace or turbine released fish (Thomas Poe, unpublished report,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Field Station, 501A Cook Underwood Rd.,
Cook WA 98605, March 1991).
Initial investigations of the physical features of the bypass system by NMFS and the
COE provided little evidence of problems. A video inspection of the discharge conduit
revealed no structural problems sufficient to cause injuries to fish. At operating conditions
identical to that under which the survival tests were conducted, water velocities adjacent to
the discharge monolith varied from 1 to 1.6 m/sec, similar to model predictions. Literature
regarding habitat suitability for northern pikeminnow, thought to be the primary piscivore
on juvenile salmon in the Columbia River (Poe et al. 1991; Vigg et al. 1991), suggested
8
that velocities of that magnitude would be exclusionary (Faler et al. 1988). Purse seining at
the outlet of the bypass produced little evidence of injury or mortality, but insufficient
numbers of fish were recovered to allow rigorous assessment (unpublished data).
In 1990, we began using a trap-net recovery system to assess the physical condition of
juvenile salmonids egressing from the bypass system. The general objective of this
research was to isolate water flow conditions and sections of the Second Powerhouse
bypass system that may cause physical trauma to juvenile salmonids during passage.
METHODS
During 1990, 1991, and 1992 with various controlled water conditions in the bypass
system, test fish were released systematically into particular locations of the bypass system
and at the outlet to effect simultaneous egress into a trap-net attached to the bypass
discharge. Physical condition and blood chemistry of recovered test fish were compared
and the differences related to bypass conditions and sections tested. Tests utilizing hatchery
reared juvenile steelhead and spring chinook, fall chinook, and coho salmon as well as feral
coho, spring chinook and fall chinook salmon were conducted at moderate (13.5-19.5 ft)
and low (9-10.5 ft) tailwater elevations and a variety of water conditions in the bypass
system. Water temperatures during our tests ranged from 5.6 to 21.1 °C.
Structural Features of the Bypass System
The tested portions of the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse
included the collection channel, water control weir, energy dissipation area, dewatering
screen, downwell, discharge conduit, and an adjoining conduit from the fish sampling room
(Fig. 3). The collection channel (channel) is a 2.7 m wide flume which extends about
d d(1) 0(1) .... ,_, ....,o mU) a.bD. "in .� d rn <1>
:= ·c ;a �(1) (1) -
� ? to h � ' <1> c
.Jo.. 0 <1> C: 0
·v: A A � o
((��://.,.(Jq;_ -·· t--"" l tBYPASS ����4�!?N CHANNEL
I l. I I (elev. 66 ft) I � 1 I I � I
"·t.1 "<r� -t-._l 'L
�� "" . 1 ·� - (94 -
� _), .:: . <$>& q>Q'(9 . I I
\.� • ...� -Lr-,� (9 .n • �� . . �
1-1 • u;· "./t, . '-� . '-"
�� l"0 : Turbine 0
1 u>4:>', Turbine\ ��
·, .....
<9<$>& 18 17 16 15, 14 13 12 11 <9
�-"0
Flow J-�·o·= r , ..-• - n·-•I - -1 -- " --.- -:-i=\· +
l,JJlJJJ' 1111Ti1:U..../ L., 1' � � OUTLET MONOLITH·DISCHARGE CONDUIT / \·--��· Trap-net <94
Q'./ t, q>Q' <9<9
(elev. -13 ft)
Figure 3. Plan view of the downstream migrant bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse indicating major features, fish release sites, and the trap-net location.
\.0
10
244 m from the south end of the powerhouse at Turbine Unit 11 to the north end at
Turbine Unit 18 and is fed by water from one 0.3 m orifice at each of the 24 gatewells.
The water volume and velocity in the channel increases from 0.2 m/second at the south end
to about 0.8 m/second at the north end.
At the north end of the collection channel a control weir maintains about 2.4 m of
depth and water surface elevation about 66 ft above sea level (English units by COE
convention). Fish and water pass over the control weir into a turbulent energy dissipation
section about 15 m long with slow downstream velocity. Velocity increases to about
1 m/second as water passes downstream over a 17 m long dewatering screen to an overfall
weir adjoining a downwell. Water surface elevation is about 61 ft and the depth passing
over the downwell overfall weir is controlled automatically. Supplemental flows are added
to automatically maintain the downwell surface elevation at 55.0 to 57.0 f. The automatic
controls were originally designed to maintain the surface elevation at about 58 ft, but were
inadequate to prevent overflow of the downwell; thus, the lower elevations were selected.
At the bottom of the downwell, there is a 1.2 m diameter, 1 m radius, 90° elbow that
connects to a 1.2 m diameter discharge conduit which extends 19 m before reducing to
0.9 m diameter. The conduit extends downward another 268 m to the tailrace and
terminates at the outlet structure. The fish sampling room has a downwell and 0.5 m
conduit which extends 123 m to a "Y" intersection with the bypass discharge conduit 105 m
upstream from the outlet. The outlet is at elevation -13 ft (6 to 14 m under the tailwater
surface depending on river volume) and angled upward from the horizontal at 23 °.
11
Trap-Net and Recovery System
In 1990, a trap-net system was installed to capture test fish upon egress from the
bypass outlet. The exit to the bypass is submerged several meters beneath the water
surface; therefore, a specially designed trap-net and positioning structure were constructed
to recover test fish (Fig. 4). Several alternative designs for this trapping facility were
developed under contract to the COE and are detailed in Summit Technology Consulting
Engineers, Inc., P.S. (1990). Of the designs presented, the trap-net was chosen because
turbine flow was unnecessary for operating that recovery system which produced the worst
case conditions of shear velocities at the bypass outlet. The trap-net attached directly to a
steel carriage permanently affixed. to the bypass discharge conduit outlet monolith. The
juvenile trap-net was designed to be operated at tailwater elevations between 7 and 20 ft.
The upper limit tailwater elevation corresponds to river flows of about 250,000 ft3/second
(English units used by COE convention). Based on 1978-88 Columbia River flow data at
Bonneville Dam, we thought it possible to operate the trapping facility on any desired date
between mid-July and mid-December as well as selected dates in March, April, and May
during an average or low flow year.
Major components of this trap-net recovery equipment were first a net positioning
structure attached to the outlet monolith with a carriage for lowering the trap-net mouth to a
position surrounding the discharge conduit outlet, and second, a triangular trap-net made of
1.75:.cm stretch measure knotless nylon webbing attached to a mouth frame. The surface
perimeter corkline was 30 x 30 x 24 m with sides tapering from 6.1 m deep at the
downstream comers to 10 m at the upstream mouth. The floor was held in position by
leadlines attached to the perimeter and through the center. A funnel-shaped mouth
OUTLET MONOLITH
NET POSITIONING STRUCTURE
NET POSITIONING STRUCTURE
El. 32.0
12 100 "· BOAT
C IOTTOM LINES
,.
aoAT
PL.AN
• o 1• .,. ,,· ro• · zs•
ICAl.t
f'LOATS EL 20.0
MAX. Of'fRATIHQ W.S.
, /
"I sz EL 7.0
PflOJECTED WATER JET COHF10URATION BASED ON LAMll'IAR FLOW Of 2, FPS OUT Of BYPASS PIPE. 0-170 CFS.VIS AVERAGE VELOCITY AT POINT SHOWN.
MIN. OPERATIHG W.S.
El. -27.S OUTLET MONOLITH
Iq.,.
1 , DISCHARGE CONDUIT SECTION
Figure 4. Plan and section views of the trap-net used to intercept test fish exiting the bypass
discharge conduit.
13
extended down 10 m where it was pinned to the carriage of the positioning structure. The
size and construction was thought to capture fish in an enclosure which would provide
sanctuary from moderate water velocities (less than 1 m/second). The third trap-net
component consisted of two 10.2 cm-diameter fish release hoses, extended 76 m from the
tailrace deck of the Second Powerhouse at elevation 55 ft to the outlet monolith at elevation
-13 ft. The terminus of each hose was reduced to 7 .2 cm and angled 10° from parallel into
the plume of the bypass discharge. The hose assemblies were designed to provide
discharge velocities equivalent to that of the bypass discharge plume. The hose releases
were used to assess effects of lateral movement of the trap-net during testing which we
speculated might cause abrasion and injury of fish at the sides of the discharge plume.
During non-test periods when turbine flows created fluctuating currents up to 2 m/second,
these hoses were twice severely damaged and required replacement 1.
Experimental Design
In response to the results of passage survival tests and perceived hydraulic conditions
within the bypass system that were thought to harm fish, we designed tests to isolate
passage effects through various sections of the bypass system. Differences of descaling,
injury, mortality, delayed mortality, and changes in blood chemistry thought to be stress
related were assessed over a range of river flows to evaluate potential detrimental impacts.
The particular research tasks were as follows:
1. Any further need for a long hose passing through the tailrace should be redesigned toprovide for an above water attachment with a rigid pipe transporting fish down to theoutflow.
14
1990-1991, Tests at Low and Moderate Tailwater Elevations
1) Develop protocols for regulating bypass conditions, adult fishway flows, and turbine
flows.
2) Develop protocols for fish marking, releases, trap-net deployment and retrieval, and
evaluation of fish condition.
3) Evaluate the effects of passage through the entire bypass system by releasing test fish
into the collection channel and the trap-net at low (9-10.5 ft) and moderate (13.5-19.5 ft)
tailwater elevations. Tests were conducted over a wide range of dates, river flows, and
water temperatures using several fish stocks including both hatchery and river-run (fish
collected from the river). Water flow and passage conditions within the bypass system
were maintained at normal ranges ( e.g., water surface elevation in the collection channel
just upstream of the downwell between 60.0 and 61.0 ft and in the downwell between
55.0 and 57.0 ft).
In 1990, tests were intended to ensure that the experimental protocols and equipment
would provide reliable results. Starting in the spring of 1991, tests were conducted to
determine effects of bypass system passage using fish from hatcheries. Subsequent testing
included use of river-run fish which, due to differences in degree of smoltification, may
have responded to the effects of bypass system passage differently than fish obtained
directly from a hatchery. In the fall of 1991, tests were conducted to evaluate effects of
bypass passage at low tailwater (9 to 10.5 ft) to assess worst-case effects; i.e., greatest
water velocity and greatest shear forces at the outlet of the discharge conduit.
15
1992, Tests at Low Tailwater Elevations
Because of variable results in 1991, tests were conducted in 1992 to evaluate effects at
high (58.5 ft) vs. low (55.5 ft) downwell water surface elevations, flow vs. no water flow
over the downwell overfall weir, and full vs. empty fish sampling room conduit. Tasks
were as follows:
1) Determine background percentages of descaling and mortality associated with the trap
net recovery process by releasing control fish groups at the water surface within the net
at the beginning of each test.
2) Determine effects of passage through the net mouth opening by releasing test fish groups
through tailrace release hoses attached to each side of the discharge conduit outlet.
3) Isolate the effects of passage through the 90° elbow at the bottom of the downwell and
the discharge conduit at maximum and minimum downwell water levels, with and
without air entrainment2, by releasing fish at locations a) slightly upstream from or
directly into the downwell, b) into the 0.9 m diameter discharge conduit about 23 m past
the elbow, and c) into the trap-net.
4) Isolate the effects of passage through portions of the collection channel and the energy
· dissipation/dewatering area--by releasing fish at the south end, middle, and north end of
the collection channel and slightly upstream from the downwell.
5) Assess the effects of passage through the bypass discharge conduit at various flow
conditions with a full vs. partially filled fish sampling room conduit-by releasing fish
slightly upstream from or into the downwell to compare with fish released into the trap-
2 Decreased air entrainment as a result of minimum water volume and distance of fall into the bypass downwell and maintaining a full downwell in the fish processing room.
16
net. The various conditions included low vs. high downwell levels and normal vs. no
overflow into the downwell. (The fish sampling room conduit adjoins the bypass
discharge conduit 105 m from the outlet). The fish sampling room conduit was
engineered to be full, but is generally operated empty which may cause air introduction
or withdrawal from the bypass discharge conduit.)
Test Fish
A variety of sizes and stocks of juvenile steelhead, chinook salmon, and coho salmon
were used in tests. We obtained test fish from several hatcheries and from the smolt
monitoring facilities at Bonneville Dam First Powerhouse and McNary Dam (Table 2).
Test fish were transported to the Adult Fish Facility (AFF) at Bonneville Dam Second
Powerhouse for marking. Hatchery fish were transported in a 3,785-L tanker truck, fish
from McNary Dam in a 13,250-L tanker truck, and fish from Bonneville First Powerhouse
in a 750-L slide-on tank.
Marking Procedures
Because accurate identification of fish by treatment was required under difficult
conditions (i.e., aboard a fishing vessel), we used easily identified marks, including excision
of a tip of the left or right ventral fin or the upper or lower lobe of the caudal fin. Unique
marks were simultaneously applied to each release group within a test. Typically, 400-600
fish/treatment group/test were used, with tests replicated four times over a 2 to 4 day
period--smaller groups and fewer replicates were utilized during exploratory evaluations.
17
Table 2. Dates and test fish for evaluations of stress,8 descaling, injury, and mortality to juvenile salmonids passing through all or portions of the bypass system ( collection channel, downwell, and discharge conduit) at the Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1990-92.
Fork Dates Water Tailwater Test length temp. elevat. Treatment
Year fishb Source (mm) Transport Marking Testc oc ft. groupsd
1990
Subyr. fall chin. Bonneville H. 140 16Nov 16Nov 19-20Nov 11.7 17.5 Collection channel, (URB stock) 140 23Nov 23Nov 26-27Nov 10.6 13.5 Egress, Net
1991
Yr. spring chin. Lookingglass H. 126 21 Mar 25-26 Mar 28-29 Mar 5.5 17 Collection channel, Egress, Net
Steelhead IrrigonH. 193 27Mar 30Mar 2, 4Apr 6.0 15.5-16.9 Collection channel, Net
Yr. coho Bonneville H. 133 8Apr 9-10 Apr 11-12 Apr 6.8 17.5-18 Collection channel, Egress, Net
Yr. coho Bonneville Dam 137 25-27 Apr 25-27 Apr 1-2 May 9.0 19.5 Collection channel, (River run) Net
Yr. chin. McNary Dam 167 26Apr 27 Apr 1-2 May 9.0 19.5 Collection channel, (River run) 151 2May 3May 7May 9.0 19.5 Net
Subyr. fall chin. Bonneville H. 85 3 Jul 5 Jul 10-11 Jul 18.3 19.5 Col. chan., Conduit, (URB stock) Egress, Net
Subyr. chin. Bonneville Dam 100 13-15 Jul 13-15 Jul 16-17 Jul 18.9 15-18.5 Collection channel,(River run) Net
Subyr. fall chin. Bonneville H. 116 28Aug 30Aug 3-5 Sep 21.1 9-10.5 Collection channel,(URB stock) Egress, Net
Subyr. coho Cascade H. 125 18 Oct 21 Oct 22-25 Oct 16.5 9.0-9.5 Collection channel, Conduit, Net
1992
Subyr. coho CascadeH. 105 7 Oct 11-14 Oct 13-16 Oct 15.3 9.5-10.5 Col. chan., Dwnwel, Conduit, Net
Subyr. fall chin. Lit. Wh. Sal. NFH 132 July 18-21 Oct 20-23 Oct 16.0 10-10.5 Collection channel, (Tule stock) Downwell, Net
Stress was assessed through changes in blood chemistry of subyearling chinook salmon in 1990, yearling chinook salmon
b in April 1991, and subyearling chinook salmon in July 1991. Generally, four replicate tests were conducted in each series.
C
d One or two tests/day on dates listed.In addition to the groups listed, killed or anesthetized hatchery fish were released during one or more of the four individual tests in each series.
18
At the AFF, fish were transferred to a 13,600-L holding tank and hatchery fish were
allowed to acclimate in Columbia River water for 48 hours prior to marking, river-run fish
were held for shorter periods. Fish were removed from the holding tank using a dip-net,
anesthetized with 50 mg/L tricaine methane sulfonate, and given single or multiple fin clips
to indicate treatment assignment. Yearling chinook salmon obtained at McNary Dam and
subyearling chinook salmon obtained at Bonneville Dam (fish obtained from the river) were
anesthetized prior to dip-netting to minimize descaling caused by struggling in the nets.
Hatchery fish required no pre-anesthesia (not fully smolted). After marking, fish were
placed in 300-L or 3,400-L holding tanks; all fish for an individual test were held in the
same size tank. Hatchery fish were held for 48 hours; run-of-the-river fish were held
24 hours prior to release.
Release Sites and Procedures
In 1990 and 1991, all test series included releases into· the bypass system collection
channel and into the recapture net. In some test series we also released fish into the bypass
system discharge conduit or into the tailrace release hoses providing a submerged release
into the discharge conduit outflow plume.
Release sites varied among tests in conjunction with the objectives of the particular
test. Selection of hours for testing, noon to 4 PM, was based on low adult salmon counts at
entrances to Bonneville Dam fish ladders (Turner et al. 1984), a perceived need for daylight
operations, and low power demands. Unless otherwise stated, all releases were through
7.6-cm diameter hoses.
In aggregate, the release sites were: 1) water surface at the south end of the channel at
Turbine Unit 11 through a 15 m long hose; 2) water surface at the middle of the channel at
19
Unit 14 through a 15 m hose; 3) water surface at the north end of the channel at Unit 17
through a 15 m long hose (release site used in previous survival studies); 4) water surface
at the dewatering screen about 10 m upstream from the downwell through a 30 m long
hose; 5) water surface of the downwell through a 15-m hose; 6) submerged in the discharge
conduit about 20 ni downstream from the downwell and just downstream from the 1.2 to
0.9 m restriction through a 30 m long hose; 7) submerged at the exit of the discharge
conduit, alternately through one of two 10.2 cm dia. x 76 m long tailrace release hoses; and
8) water surface adjacent to the south side of the trap-net through a 10.2-cm diameter x 2 m
long hose. Shear forces on fish leaving the hoses were well below the 15 m/second
threshold thought to cause problems with fish of this size (Groves 1972).
A few minutes prior to release, holding tanks containing control fish for release into
the trap-net were lowered from the deck of the dam onto a boat. The boat then
maneuvered to the south perimeter of the trap-net where fish were released.
Releases of test fish groups were made in sequence to provide similar timing of
entrance into the trap-net for all treatment groups; deviations from this procedure are noted
in tables. Generally, control fish were released when the first test fish were observed
entering the trap-net. However, when releases were made at the south end or middle of the
collection channel, control fish were released about 10 minutes prior to termination of the
test because of the long time period of bypass passage. Passage time through the discharge
conduit averaged about 45 seconds (268 m at about 6 m/sec). · Differences of descaling,
injury, mortality, and delayed mortality percentages among treatment and control groups
were assessed to identify detrimental impacts associated with passage through the various
sections of the bypass system at the flow conditions tested.
20
To provide the least amount of disturbance at release, tanks and release hoses were
coupled with matching cam and groove aluminum fittings (machined to remove all sharp
interior edges and roughness) and slide gates were opened using handles external to the
tank. Once the tanks were emptied of fish and water, the release hoses were flushed with
additional water.
Turbine and Fishway Operating Requirements
The trap-net could not be easily deployed, retrieved, or maintained in fishing position
against strong currents or cross currents present in the tailrace. It was therefore necessary
to request special powerhouse and adult fishway operations during testing; these included:
1) shut down seven of the eight Second Powerhouse main turbine units (11 or 12 and
13-18); 2) diminish flows from the north upstream entrance of the Washington shore
fishway by raising the control weir to 0.3-1.2 m below tailwater elevation; 3) operate the
fishway water supply turbines to sustain about a 0.4 m differential to tailwater elevation
(3 cm less than standard operational specifications); and 4) during some tests, adjust the
small fishway Turbine Units Fl and F2 to 1.3 to 1.2 ft to reduce the flow from the fishway.
Special operations were maintained for 3 to 5 hours on each test day beginning at noon
with tests initiated 1 hour or more following turbine shut down.
For deployment and retrieval of the trap-net, COE personnel diverted flow from the
bypass conduit by opening the emergency relief gate (ERG); the ERG was closed during
tests.
21
Recovery and Evaluation Procedures
Following the passage of most test fish into the trap-net, the ERG was opened and the
carriage, with the net-mouth attached, was lifted to the surface. The net was then
laboriously retrieved to the deck of a barge moored to the net positioning structure. A
pocket of web (1.2 x 2.4 x 1.2 m deep) was left in the water for holding. The test fish
were then lifted from the web pocket with a sanctuary net (41 x 122 x 36 cm deep) and
apportioned into 2, 3, or 4 (depending on size of fish) 400-L containers for holding prior to
anesthetization and examination for descaling, injury, and mortality. Fish were categorized
as descaled (>25% of scales lost on one side), injured, or moribund. Observations of
physical trauma were recorded, and all injured and descaled fish plus a 100-fish subsample
of healthy fish from each release group were transported to the juvenile fish processing
room at the Second Powerhouse. Delayed mortality was assessed after 48-hours of holding.
Periodic releases of killed or anesthetized fish were made into the bypass system
collection channel to compare recovery rates of live and dead fish. Of concern was the
possibility that fish injured during passage through the system may have a different capture .
rate than :uninjured fish, thus causing a potential bias in test results.
Stress Evaluation
November 1990
Stress assessments were conducted by Alec Maule (Oregon State University) under
contract to NMFS. Juvenile fall chinook salmon (upriver bright stock) obtained from
Bonneville Hatchery were marked and released as previously described. During· each of the
four test replications, samples of 10-12 fish were taken from the three treatment groups
1 hour before release, and at 0.5, 2, 4, 6, 18, and 42 hours after recapture. The first post-
22
release stress assessment samples were taken as soon as recaptured fish became available,
generally 20 to 40 minutes following release. Subsamples of about 120 fish/treatment
group were held in the Fish Observation Room of the Visitor Observation Building to
provide a pool of fish for stress assessment samples. Fish were anesthetized in buffered,
200 mg/L tricaine methane sulfonate, the caudal peduncle severed, and blood withdrawn
into heparinized capillary tubes. Plasma was separated by centrifugation and stored frozen
prior to assay. Plasma cortisol was determined by the radioimmunoassay method (Redding
et al. 1984). Plasma glucose was measured as described by Wedemeyer and Yasutake
(1977) and plasma lactate assayed by fluorimetry (Passonneau 1974).
April and May 1991
Juvenile yearling chinook salmon obtained from the collection facility at McNary Dam
were marked and released as previously described. However, the tailrace release hose
(submerged release into the bypass outlet plume--egress release) was eliminated while
retaining the release into the bypass channel and the surface release into the net. In each of
four replicate tests, samples of 12 fish were taken from the two release groups at the same
time intervals used during November 1990. Sampling protocol, sample assays, and data
analyses were as in November 1990 tests.
To provide a measure of capacity to respond to stress, we subjected separate 100-fish
groups to acute and chronic stresses. Acute stress was induced by netting fish from the
holding container, keeping them out of the water for 30 seconds, and then placing them
back into the water in a second holding container. Chronic stress was induced by
crowding. Fish were placed into 19-L plastic buckets which were immersed in a large
holding tank. Holes drilled in the sides of the buckets allowed for water exchange. The
23
density of fish in each bucket was maintained at 150-200 g/L by raising the buckets slightly
as fish were removed at sampling intervals. Samples of 12 fish were removed from the
initial holding container just before beginning the tests, and from the fmal holding
containers at 0.5, 2, 4, 6, 18, and 42 hours after the start of the tests. Sampling protocol,
sample assays, and data analyses were as in November 1990 tests.
July 1991
Juvenile chinook salmon were obtained from the First Powerhouse Smolt Monitoring
Facility at Bonneville Dam. In each of four replicate tests, samples of 4-14 fish were taken
from the two release groups 2-4 hours prior to release, and at 0.5, 2, 4, 6, 18, and 42 hours
after recapture. Acute and chronic stress characterizations were conducted as in April and
May 1991. Sampling protocol, samples assays, and data analyses were as in previous tests.
Statistical Procedures
The experimental design adopted was a release of 400-fish groups at various locations
replicated four times. We expected 95% recovery of test fish and 2% background
injury/mortality due to recovery procedures. We anticipated detecting 2% differences of
iajury/mortality among groups passing through the various passage routes (a. = 0.05 and
· 8 = 0.2) (Cochran and Cox 1957). Data were analyzed by t-test (Sokal and Rohlf 1981 ).
Stress assessment data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance followed by
comparison of means using Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference (FPLSD)
procedures at the 5% probability level (Petersen 1985).
24
RESULTS
Preliminary Tests
Beginning in November 1990, procedures were developed to deploy and retrieve a
specially designed recapture net. Minor gear problems were resolved (Figs. 3-4) and
fishway flows were established which provided the least turbulence during trap-net
operations. Subyearling chinook salmon were released into the bypass system just upstream
from the downwell and at the water surface in the recapture net. At moderate tailwater
level 13.5 to 17.5 ft, descaling averaged 3% for bypass releases and about half of that for
control releases through the submerged tailrace release hoses ancl directly into the net
{Table 3). Even though descaled percentages for control releases were about half of the
bypass released fish, there was no statistical difference (a = 0.05). Injury plus mortality of
bypass released fish averaged less than 0.5% and was not statistically different from
controls (a = 0.05).
The trap-net recovered 80-100% of the live test fish and 93-100% of the killed fish
released into the bypass channel {Table 3). The high recovery percentage of killed fish
allowed us to assume that injured, moribund, and dead test fish exiting the bypass were
proportionally represented in recovery data.
The stress response as measured by levels of cortisol, glucose, and lactate rose
significantly from the pre-release sample to the first post-release sample at 0.5 hours
(Appendix Table 1). Cortisol levels at 2 hours decreased slightly for the bypass channel
and egress release groups, but increased slightly for the net release group. Cortisol levels
for all treatments fell significantly at 4 hours, then remained fairly constant until sampling
was completed at 42 hours. The response curve for the egress group was significantly
25
Table 3. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery reared subyearling chinook salmon passing through the Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse bypass system, 1990; at tailwater elevation 13.5-17.5 ft and water temperature 10.6 - 1 l.7 °C.
Release infonnationb
Date Site No.
19Nov By Eg
Nt
20Nov By Eg Nt
26Nov By Eg
Nt
581 576 576
578 578 578
577 579 577
27Nov By 591 By--killede 658
Eg 579 Nt 581
Total/Mean(SE) By 2,327 By--killed 658 Egr 2,312
Nt 2,312
Recovery information aCatch Descaled Dead/injuredc
No. % No. % No. %
574 498 559
561 445 550
560 540 560
577 570 515 578
2,272 570
1,998 2,247
98.8 86.5 97.0
97.1 77.0 95.2
97.1 93.3 97.1
97.6 86.6 88.9 99.5
16 2.8 9 1.8
11 2.0
19 3.4 9 2.0 9 1.6
12 2.1 12 2.2 11 2.0
22 3.8
5 1.0 2 0.3
97.6(0.4) 69 3.0(0.4) 86.6 86.4(3.4) 35 1.8(0.3) 97.2(0.9) 33 1.5(0.4)
3 0.5 0 0.0 3 0.5
5 0.9 2 0.4 0 0.0
1 0.2 4 0.7 0 0.0
1 0.2
1 0.2 0 0.0
10 0.4(0.2)
7 0.4(0.2) 3 0.1(0.1)
Delayed Mort. d
%
0.7 0.0 0.0
0.8 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.8 0.0
0.4(0.2)
0.2(0.2) 0.0
a To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
b Site codes are By = bypass entrance release, Eg = egress hose release, Nt = surface release into recovery net.
c Of the fish grouped as dead or injured, only eight were dead and all were from the bypass release group (0.35% of the total release).
d Groups of 120 fish were held 48 hours following tests to evaluate delayed mortality. Additionally, descaled and injured fish recovered in the last 2 days of testing were held 24 hours to assess delayed mortality and included in the presented results.
e Killed fish were released into the bypass system along with the live fish. We estimated 15 to 20 fish taken from the net by sea gulls during the 27 November test--substantially more than in tests where no killed fish were released.
r A gap between the net mouth and stanchions probably reduced recovery. An underwater video tape of the structure revealed this problem after testing was completed.
26
higher than for the net group. Glucose levels remained fairly constant from 2 hours
through the duration of the test ,and the response curves for bypass channel and egress
groups were significantly higher than for the net group. Lactate levels gradually returned to
pre-treatment levels and showed no differences among treatment groups.
The significant rise in cortisol observed at the first post-recapture (time = 0) samples
indicates all groups were only slightly stressed. Maximum cortisol levels for bypass and
egress treatment groups were 120.5 and 140.2 ng/ml, respectively, somewhat higher than
the maximum of 94.6 ng/ml observed for the net release. Note that the maximum cortisol
level was seen in bypass and egress releases at recapture, while the maximum for net
releases was seen at the second post-recapture sample at 2 hours post release. Because the
egress group elicited a stronger stress response than the bypass group, it appears that
passage through the 10.2-cm x 76-m hose to the bypass outlet caused more stress than the
bypass system.
1991 Tests
Moderate Tailwater
From March through July 1991, tests were conducted at moderate tailwater elevations
15 to 19.5 ft using hatchery reared steelhead and hatchery as well as river-run coho and
yearling and subyearling chinook salmon. Results suggested impacts from bypass passage
were minimal in relation to losses suggested from earlier studies. Mean descaling in all test
series was higher for fish released into the bypass system than for control releases, and the
magnitude of the difference was greatest for river-run fish (Table 4; Appendix Tables 2-10).
Descaling of bypass passage groups was not significantly different (a. = 0.05) from controls
for hatchery yearling chinook salmon or for hatchery steelhead. Differences were near
27
Table 4. Results of trap-net recovery data for tests of Bonneville Second Powerhouse bypass system conducted in 1991; mean percentages of recovery, descaling, injury, mortality, and delayed mortality at moderate and low tailwaters.
Stock a
Tailwater Treatment b %Recov. %Kil.rec.c %Descale %Injury %Mort. %Del.mort.d
MODERATE TAILWATER-15.0 to 19.5 ft MSL
Hatcherye By channel TW=18ft Egress
Net
Riv.-runr By channel TW=20 ft Net
Hatcherye By channel TW=17 ft Egress
Net
Riv.-run By channel TW=20 ft Net
Hatchery By channel TW=16 ft Net
Hatchery By channel TW=19ft By conduit
Egress Net
Riv.-run By channel TW=16 ft Net
Coho salmon 99.6 96.3 3.0 92.5 1.9 98.8 0.8
94.1 100.0g 8.5 99.4 1.2
Yearling s:gring chinook salmon 97.6 91.7 98.0
92.2 86.1
74.9 101.6
97.4 1.1 0.3 0.5
100.0g 11.6 0.3
Steelhead 95.0 0.2
0.1
Subyearling fall chinook salmon 84.6 94.2 3.0 85.9 2.6 82.6 1.6 85.5 0.4
84.9 92.5g 28.6 94.6 1.4
0.6 0.3 0.5
1.2 0.6
0.4 0.0 0.1
0.5 0.4
0.3 0.4
0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0
3.8 0.2
0.2 0.1 0.2
0.2 0.6
0.5 0.1 0.2
0.6 0.4
0.1 0.0
5.6 3.0 1.9 0.5
2.4 1.2
0.0 0.8 0.0
0.5 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.2
1.4 0.5
0.0 0.0
5.1 4.1 1.3 1.2
7.7 2.8
28
Table 4. Continued.
Stock a
Tailwater Treatment b %Recov. %Kil. rec.c %Descale %Injury %Mort. %Del. mort.d
Hatchery TW=9-
10.5 ft
Stock
LOWTAILWATER ELEVATION-
Subyearling fall chinook salmon (21 °C water temperature} By channel 90.8 95.0 6.5 0.8 28.5 By conduit 92.8 4.2 0.5 17 .1 Eggress 75.1 2.1 0.2 4.8 Net 99.2 0.1 0.2 1.5
Mortality% Date TW elev.(ft} Net Egiess By conduit Bychannel Sept 3 10.5 0.3 0.4 2.3 6.3 Sept 4 9.5 0.5 0.4 3.4 7.0 Sept 5 9.0 0.8 6.3 23.2 49.2 Sept 5 9.0 4.2 12.1 39.5 51.1
Subyearling coho salmon {16.5° C water temperature }
4.2 1.0 0.8 2.5
Tailwater Treatment a %Recov. %Kil. rec.b %Descale %Injury %Mort. %Del. mort.d
Hatchery By channel 79. 9 95.0 0. 9 0.3 8.5 0.8 TW=9- By conduit 85.1 0.7 0.1 5.5 0.0
9.5 ft Net 96.3 0.2 0.1 0. 7 0.0
Mortality% Date TW elev.(ft} Net Egiess By conduit By channel Oct22 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oct23 9.5 1.3 19. 4 31.5 Oct24 9.0 1.3 2.3 1.8 Oct25 9.0 0.0 0.3 0.8
• Hatchery or river-run (collected from McNary or Bonneville bypass systems). TW = water surfaceelevation (ft) of the tailrace.
b Generally 400 fish per treatment and four replicates, other group sizes and numbers of replicates areindicated. Where: By channel= 10 m upstream from downwell; By conduit= 20 m downstream fromdownwell; Egress = through release hoses into outflow plume; Net = at water surface of the trap-net.
c Percent recovery of fish which were killed before release into the bypass.d Delayed mortality of injured, descaled plus 100 fish subsample after 48 hours.e Group size was 600 fish per treatment; four replicates.£ Only two replicates; total about 800 fish per treatment. ' Hatchery fish used for fish group released dead.
29
significance level in tests with hatchery subyearling chinook salmon and hatchery coho
salmon, and highly significant in test series with river-run fish. Descaling for bypass
system releases of river-run fish was 8.5% for coho salmon, 11.6% for yearling chinook
salmon, and 28.6% for subyearling chinook salmon.
Prevalence of injuries from bypass passage was generally less than I% of the live
recaptured fish; there were generally no significant differences between bypass system and
control releases. An exception was the test series with river-run subyearling chinook
salmon where iajuries were observed on 3.8% of fish released into the bypass system,
compared to 0.2% of control fish.
Prevalence of mortality related to bypass passage was generally less than I% of the
fish at recovery and 48-hour delayed mortality was less than 1.5%. However, in tests with
subyearling chinook salmon on 10, II, 16, and 17 July, direct and 48-hour delayed
mortality attributed to bypass system passage averaged 5.6 and 5.1 %, respectively, for fish
obtained from Bonneville Hatchery, and 2.4 and 7.7% respectively for river-run fish
(Table 4).
Impacts to fish passing through the tailrace release hoses were no different than fish
groups released into the trap-net at the surface. To reduce the number of test fish necessary
for subsequent tests, the tailrace hose releases were eliminated.
Killed and heavily sedated fish were captured at as high or higher a percentage than the
uninjured test fish (Appendix Tables 2-8), thus we abandoned the practice of releasing
killed fish along with test groups in subsequent tests.
30
To evaluate stress during bypass passage, blood plasma levels of cortisol, glucose, and
lactate were measured in both river-run yearling and river-run subyearling chinook salmon.
Generally, these measurements indicated significantly greater stress to bypass-released fish
groups than to controls (Appendix Tables 11-12). Concentrations of plasma cortisol for
bypass groups were significantly higher than controls for an 18-hour period following
passage (Fig. 5). Plasma glucose increased and peaked significantly higher than controls at
6 to 18 hours post test. Plasma lactic acid peaked significantly higher than controls
immediately after the test (Fig. 6). Test fish stressed in the laboratory by crowding and
netting, to establish comparison points of known stress, showed cortisol levels of similar
magnitude to those produced from bypass passage.
Plasma cortisol levels attained after passage through the bypass system at Bonneville
Dam Second Powerhouse were compared with those at Lower Granite (Congleton et al.
1984), Little Goose (Monk et al. 1991), and McNary Dams (Maule et al. 1988). For both
river-run yearling and river-run subyearling chinook salmon, levels measured at Bonneville
were within the ranges already measured at the other dams (Figs. 7-8).
Low Tailwater
At low tailwater elevations (9-10.5 ft), we conducted two additional tests to evaluate
what we believed would be the · most detrimental conditions of bypass passage, because of
greater hydrostatic head. Those tests revealed an apparent high variability of passage
conditions which caused intermittent high mortality ranging from 6 to 51 % for subyearling
chinook salmon and from Oto 32% for subyearling coho salmon (Table 4; Appendix
Tables 9-10).
31
CORTl'SOL 400 -·············································································
Hatchery Sub Yr Chinook 300 -·············································································
Pre 0.5 2
.,
4 6 18 42
400 -········ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
River-Run Yr Chinook / Ji1-.--,
n
� m
I
.lo'- /' "17 300 -··································/·····.":":-:.� ........ , ........... .
· / Lab Chronic
0
-0.5 0.5 2 4 6
Lab Acute
18 42
400 -········································································
River-Run Sub Yr Chinook ,,,., ,,R---"T
/1
300 -····························/. ............•...•..........•....•.•......
T n /
! 200-··········;.·//I
o
-0.5 0.5 2 4 6 18 42
Hours (relative to test)
Figure 5. Cortisol levels of river-run yearling and subyearling chinook salmon before and after bypass passage compared to counterparts released in the trap-net (Net) and to laboratory test fish stressed by dipnetting (Acute) and by continuous crowding (Chronic).
32
LACTATE
150 -····························································· .................. .
Hatchery Subyearling Chinook m 100 -····························································· ···················
g I
d I 50 -············
0
Pre 0.5
,JI!" Bypass
2 4 6 18 42
150 -········································································
. . . Lab Chronic River-Run Yearling Chinook I
/�
m ,oo -··············
··········································7·········
g I
d I 50 -··········
0
Pre 0.5 2 4
'ii" /
/ Lab Acute ·-·�·-················
6 18 42
Rive r-R YJ1 .. $. � QY $..�r.li. n g . . G h.i. n .99. � ............ .
m100-··············
g I d I
0
11
/
/
.� .. �.-:t. ...... .. .
Pre 0.5 2 4 6 18 42
Hours (relative to test) Figure 6. Lactate levels of river-run yearling and subyearling chinook salmon before and after
bypass passage compared to counterparts released in the trap-net (Net) and to laboratory test fish stressed by dipnetting (Acute) and by continuous crowding (Chronic).
33
Direct Measure Tests, 1991 River-run Yearling Chinook Salmon
Cortisol Comparison
500
..!.. 400 E. C)
S300 0
.� 200 t:: 0
o 100
Dsonn '91
� Goose 190-
D Granite '83
II McNary 183
Resting Post - T =0 Post - Max
Figure 7. Cortisol levels of river-run yearling chinook salmon after passage through the bypass system a Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse compared with levels measured at other dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers.
...-.
T""
34
Direct Measure Tests, 1991 River-run Subyearling Chinook Salmon
Cortisol Comparison
250 DBonn 1
91
0McNary 182 ..:.. 200 E Ed McNary '83
I
0)
S 150
0
-� 100� 0
0 50
I McNary 184
Resting Post - T =O Post - Max
Figure 8. Cortisol levels of river-run subyearling chinook salmon after passage through the
bypass system a Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse compared with levels measured
at other dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers.
35
Fluctuating conditions which caused the intermittent problems during fish passage were
not identifiable during the ·conduct of the experiments, although distance of passage through
the system generally corresponded with increased descaling, injury, and mortality. Impacts
to fish released at the mid-point of the bypass system were less, 2-40% mortality for
subyearling chinook salmon and 0-19% mortality for subyearling coho salmon. We believe
that all of the mortality was associated with impingement on the trap-net; however, the
difference among groups is speculated to be a consequence of fatigue and/or stress
associated with the rigors of passage through particular bypass segments.
Test Conditions that Affected Results
At initiation of the October tests, it became apparent that water velocity through the
trap-net was changing substantially in conjunction with downwell water surface elevation.
Water velocity measurements at the outlet of the conduit varied from 5.1 m/second at low
downwell level (56.5 ft) to 6.6 m/second at high downwell level (58.5 ft). Surface water
velocity at the downstream side of the net, 30 m from the outlet, varied from
0.5-0.8 m/second at low downwell levels to 0.9-1.4 m/second at high downwell levels.
Water velocity measured at the downstream side of the trap-net seemed unrelated to air
entrainment. At high downwell levels, air entrainment could be almost eliminated by
eliminating the water flow over the downwell overfall weir and replacing it with water from
the supplemental supply valves. Thus, we were able to assess the water velocities with and
without entrained air at high downwell levels. We found no substantial difference in· water
velocity at the two conditions; however, there was considerable variability. We found that
substantial air entrainment occurred at all operational conditions when the downwell water
surface was low, thus effects of air entrainment on velocity could not be assessed. Amount
36
of entrained air seemed unaffected by the status ( empty or full) of the fish sampling room
conduit (Fig. 3); however, this assessment was only a visual comparison over time and
small differences could not be differentiated.
Evaluation of Adverse Bypass Conditions
Variation of impacts from bypass passage observed in fall 1991 tests, created
speculation that hydraulic conditions were changing associated with changes of water
surface elevation in the downwell and air entrainment. Further study of the physical
characteristics of the bypass system by NMFS biologists and engineers indicated two
potential sources ·of hazard within the bypass discharge conduit: 1) entrained air may cause
severe pressure fluctuations throughout the conduit, and 2) a short radius 1.2-m diameter
0.9-m radius 90° elbow at the bottom of the downwell may produce non-laminar flow and
pressure conditions which might be detrimental to fish (Edward Meyer, unpublished report,
NMFS, ETSD, Portland, OR 97232-2737, October 1991). During fish passage tests in 1987
·through 1991, the downwell water level was controlled automatically (normal system
operation). Downwell water level was recorded at the end of each test, but may not have
properly represented the average level of each test. Theoretically, change of the downwell
levels altered: 1) the severity of non-laminar flows and negative pressures presumed to be
present at the inside of the 90° elbow at the bottom of the elbow, 2) the distance of plunge
for water passing over the overfall weir into the downwell causing more or less air
entrainment, and 3) the volume of air vented or introduced through the 0.5-m diameter
conduit connected to the fish sampling room.
37
1992 Tests at Low Tailwater
Results of biological and physical tests conducted in 1991 suggested that additional fish
passage tests at low tailwater elevations were necessary. In those tests several additional
objectives were entertained to provide a clearer understanding of impacts related to physical
aspects of the bypass system and to test the fish recovery process. Tests were conducted in
October 1992 at tailwater elevations of 9.5 to 10.5 ft.
In general, all tests during 1992 showed progressively larger percentages of descaling
and mortality (% detriment) in direct relation to the distance of passage through the bypass.
Passage Effects at High vs. Low Downwell Water Surface Elevation
The high water velocity in the trap-net at the high downwell level confounded
interpretation of test results intended to evaluate high vs. low downwell water surface
levels. Mortality and descaling occurred to large percentages of fish from all release groups
captured in the trap-net during tests with a high downwell level (Table 5). We believe that
the observed descaling and mortality were a direct result of impingement on the net and
only relate to fatigue and stress of passage through the bypass system. We believe that
comparison among replicates and among different tests should only be made in a relative
fashion--proportional to the other groups in that replicate. With the configuration of the
trap-net utilized, it appears impossible to assess differences in passage effects related to
downwell level.
Effects from Suspected Negative Pressures in the Short Radius Elbow
Results from the eight tests conducted 13-16 October 1992 suggest no differences
between fish groups released into the downwell (upstream and downstream of the short
38
Table 5. October 1992 tests using hatchery coho salmon to evaluate effects of the downwell water level and the 90° elbow at the bottom of the downwell; at tailwater elevation 9.5-10.5 ft and water temperature 16 °C.
Downwell Percent detriment b� release location" surf.elev.
Date (statust Coll.chanc Downwelld Conduite
13 high 51 19 14 14 high 49 35 22 15 high 66 24 33 16 high 39 12 17
13 low 17 8 5 14 low 8 2 1 15 low 3 1 2 16 low 2 0 0
• Detriment percentage--percent descaling oflive fish plus percent mortality.
Avg.water velocity
Net (ml second) 2 l.2f
l38 l.5f
10 1.1 12 l.2f
2 <0.9f
0.9r
1 0.7 0 <0.9f
b High downwell elevations were 58.0 - 58.5 ft which is the highest possible water level. Low relates to thelowest of the portion of the elevation range normal to the automatic level control system 55.0 - 56.5 ft.Fish sampling room conduit was empty.
c Fish were released into the collection channel adjacent to Turbine Unit 17 located at the north end of thepowerhouse; the release site used in all previous tests.
d A release site just upstream from the suspect elbow.e Released through a 30-m hose ending just downstream from the 1.2 to 0.9 m-restriction.r Estimated water velocity at the downstream side of the trap-net. 8 Released at the surface adjacent to the downstream side of the trap-net where water velocity appears to be
greatest. Normal site is on the south side in lower velocities.
39
radius 90° elbow) and groups released into the conduit (downstream from the 90° elbow).
Differences in percentage of detriment for downwell groups and conduit groups (Table 5)
were insignificant (P = 0. 72).
Effects of Diminished Air Entrainment
To evaluate the effects of air entrainment, we conducted two tests at high downwell
level comparing passage impacts under conditions of normal flow at the downwell overfall
weir to that of no water flow over the downwell overflow weir (no overflow).
Simultaneous release at both conditions was impossible, thus fish releases at "no overflow"
conditions were conducted immediately prior to and after releases with the normal overflow
conditions. Fish were released at the surface of the downwell.
Results of tests conducted on October 21 and 22 suggested no significant difference in
percentage detriment between the two conditions (entrained air vs. no entrained air/overflow
vs. "no overflow") (P = 0.98; Table 6). However, the results varied considerably in
association with the duration of each test. Detriment to all groups increased with the
number of minutes fish spent in the trap-net; those effects far out-weighed the effects of air
entrainment.
In an attempt to decrease the time fish _spent in the trap-net, three additional tests were
conducted on October 23 comparing overflow to "no overflow." In those tests, the EGR
was opened (stopping flow through the discharge conduit) 3.minutes after fish were
released into the downwell (Table 6). Differences between overflow and "no flow"
conditions were minimal although differences between the downwell released fish and net
released fish were marginally significant (P = 0.14) at both conditions.
40
Table 6. October 1992 tests using hatchery fall chinook salmon to evaluate effects of air entrainment in the conduit at tailwater elevation 10-10.5 ft. Mechanisms evaluated were elimination of water flow over the end sill and occlusion of fish sampling room conduit.
Downwell Sample Rm. Percent detriment b� release location• surf.elev. pipe Collection channel Downwell
Date (statust (status)c 11 or 14d 17 Overflowc
21 high full 31 20 22 high full 89 81
21 high empty 33 26 22 high empty 58 33
23 high full 23 high full 37 15 4 23 high empty
• Detriment percentage--percent descaling oflive fish plus percent mortality.
No overflo�
56f
178
74f
us
7s
7s
Net
6 10
35f
12
2 2 3
b High downwell elevations were 58.0 - 58.5 ft which is the highest possible water level. Low relates to thelowest of the portion of the elevation range normal to the automatic level control system 55.0 - 56.5 ft.
c The downwell for the 0.5-m conduit extending from the sampling room to a mid-point Yin the 0.9-m bypass conduit was filled with water or empty ( occluding or allowing possible air introduction to the bypass conduit).
d Fish were released into the collection channel adjacent to TurbineUnits 11, 14, and 17 located at the south end, middle, and north end of the powerhouse. The Unit 17 release point is the release site used in all previous tests.
e When water flowed over the end sill into the bypass system downwell (normal operation), air was entrained causing substantially increased boiling at the water surface of the outflow plume in the tailrace. Tests with no water flow over the end sill were conducted to evaluate the effects of air. The water volume and velocities were similar under both conditions.
r Released early--held in trap-net about 10 minutes longer than other groups.8 Released late--held in trap-net about 10 minutes less time than other groups.
41
Effects from Operation with Full vs. Empty Fish Sampling Room Conduit
We believed there may have been air entrainment in the bypass system occurring from
the normally empty fish sampling room conduit which joins the bypass conduit about
105 m from the outlet. To test the relevance of this potential air entrainment, tests were
conducted with the fish sampling room conduit empty of water (normal condition) in which
air entrainment could occur, comparing these to tests with the fish sampling room conduit
filled with water preventing any air introduction. Paired fish releases were made into
various locations of the bypass system with full or empty sampling room conduit (Table 6).
Although the combined data used for this comparison had a wide variation, the difference
among paired tests showed that with otherwise similar conditions, no significant differences
could be associated to the status of the sampling room conduit (P = 0.55). From inspection
of the data, we believe that the wide range of detriment was associated with varying
duration in the trap-net, and variation of downwell elevation.
Effects from Passage Through Particular Segments of the Collection Channel
In most tests, the greatest increase in detriment occurred between the north end of the
collection channel at Turbine Unit 17 and the downwell (Fig. 3). This increased detriment
ranged from 0.1 to 4 times that of downwell released fish (% detriment Unit 17 + %
detriment downwell; Table 7). The variability between tests is a result of variation in time
spent in the trap-net and the difference in water· velocity through the net. Direct
comparisons between tests are inappropriate because of unequal times in the trap...;net prior
to system shutdown and net retrieval.
Results for fish releases at the middle and south end of the collection channel appear to
suggest substantial detriment associated with passage through the channel; 1.4 to 3 .2 times
Table 7. October 1992 tests using hatchery coho and chinook salmon to evaluate the effects of passage through the collection channel and energy dissipation area and dewatering screen; at tailwater elevation 9.5-10.5 ft and water temperature 15.2 to 16.5°C.
Percent detriment by release locationa Detriment relationship among releasesb
Dwnwll Collection channelc
Date elevd 11 or 14 17 Downwell Conduit Net 11,14/17 17/Dw Dw/Co Dw/Nt Co/Nt 13 low 17 8 5 2 2.1 1.6 4.0 2.5 14 low 8 2 1 4.0 2.0 15 low 3 1 2 1 3.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 16 low 2 0 0 0 20 low 27 19 8 2 1.4 2.4 4.0 13 high 51 19 14 2 2.7 1.4 9.5 7.0 14 high 49 35 22 13
8 1.4 1.6 2.7 1.7 15 high 66 24 33 10 2.8 0.7 2.4 3.3 16 high 39 12 17 12 3.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 20 high 100 31 21 20( 3.2 1.5 1.1 21 high 31 20 6 1.6 3.3 21 high 74f 35f 2.1 21 high 33 26 1.3 0.7 22 high 89( 81( 10 1.1 8.1 22 high 58 33 12 1.8 --- 2.8 23 high 37 15 4 2 2.5 2.0 23 high 71 2 2.1 23 high 71 3 2.3
Average: 2.3 2.3 1.2 3.1 3.0 a Detriment percentage = percent descaling of live fish plus percent mortality.
11,14/17 = Unit 14 or Unit 11 detriment% / Unit 17 detriment%; 17/Dw = Unit 17 detriment% / downwell detriment%. Dw/Co = Downwell detriment % / Conduit detriment %; Dw/Nt = Downwell detriment % / net detriment %. Co/Nt = Conduit detriment % / Net detriment %.
C Fish were released into the collection channel adjacent to Turbine Units 11, 14, and 17 located at the south end, middle, and north end of the powerhouse. The Unit 17 release point is the release site used in all previous tests.
d High downwell elevations were 58.0 - 58.5 ft which is the highest possible water level. Low relates to the lowest of the portion of the elevation range normal to the automatic level control system 55.0 - 56.5 ft.
e Released at the water surface of the downstream side of the trap-net into high velocity water. f Released early--held in trap-net about 10 minutes longer than other fish groups. I Released late--held in trap-net about 10 minutes less time than other fish groups.
.i:,. I'\.)
43
greater descaling plus mortality for releases at the south end of the collection channel at
Unit 11 than for releases at the north end at Unit 17 (Table 7). Test fish releases at the
south end of the collection channel traveled the full length of the dam. Consequently, they
spent a much longer time in passage to the exit; also, the fastest moving fish may have
resided in the trap-net longer than fish released elsewhere. Level of detriment caused to the
fish in the trap-net was directly related to the elapsed time between entry into the net and
the opening of the ERG.
Tests conducted at low downwell level (i.e., lower water velocity through the trap-net)
produced less descaling and mortality than tests at high downwell with water flow over the
overfall weir. However, the same relationship of greater detriment for longer passage
prevailed. The energy dissipation and dewatering section of the bypass system (Fig. 3)
consistently produced a substantial increase of detrimental effects (% detriment
Unit 17 + % detriment Downwell; Table 7).
Injuries Observed During Bypass Passage Tests
Percentages of injury, other than descaling and mortality, which were attributable to
passage through the bypass system ranged from Oto 7 % (test fish injury % - control fish
injury %) and averaged 0.9% for all tests (Table 8; Appendix Tables 2-10 and 13-14). The
injuries identified were typical of those described by other authors (Oligher and Donaldson
1966, Groves 1972, Johnson 1976) induced by shear, high velocity impact, and negative
pressures--head and eye abrasion, hemorrhaging, and damage to the isthmus and opercula.
However, the injuries were generally slight and in most instances did not represent a direct
threat to survival. Delayed mortality (48 hours) for injured and descaled fish was generally
44
Table 8. Direct assessment of injury among juvenile salmonids passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991 and 1992.
Recovery informationb
Treatment no.
Bypassc
Controld
Bypass
Control
Bypass
Control
14,748
18,502
12,765
4,211
27,513
22,713
Injury informationa
Isthmus Opercle Eye/Head Hemorrhage damage Laceration damage no. % no. % no. % no. % no. %
46 0.31
12 0.06
110 0.90
20 0.47
156 0.57
32 0.14
1991 tests
53 0.36 3 0.02 17 0.11 20 0.14
7 0.04 3 0.02 9 0.05 5 0.03
1992 tests
37 0.29 2 0.02 15 0.12 18 0.14
3 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.12
Combined total (1991, 1992)
90 0.33
10 0.04
5 0.02 32 0.12 38 0.14
3 0.01 9 0.04 10 0.04
a Descaling injury has been evaluated separately. b Represents the number of test fish recovered after release. c Represents all bypass system releases combined. d Includes both egress hose releases and surface net releases.
Total no. %
139 0.94
36 0.19
182 1.42
28 0.66
321 1.16
64 0.28
45
high, but there was no difference between treatment and control fish. Injuries were rather
inconsequential in comparison to descaling and mortality.
Descaled fish appeared to be slightly larger and mortalities slightly smaller than the
average size of both chinook and coho salmon release populations (October 1992 tests)
(Table 9). We hypothesize that the fish initially contacting the trap-net were of similar size
to those released, but those freeing themselves from the net were the larger fish and
sustained descaling in the process, while those remaining impinged were smaller than the
average fish and were unable to break free of the net.
DISCUSSION
In 1992, water clarity improved from that of all previous tests and impinged fish were
observed on webbing panels in the trap-net. The impingement appeared to increase at the
highest water velocities (1.1 to 1.5 m/second at the downstream edge of the net) associated
with low tailwater elevation and high downwell elevation (greater hydrostatic head within
the bypass discharge conduit). This helped frame our conclusion that stress and fatigue
caused during passage through the bypass system was directly related to physical trauma
observed in tests with river-run salmonids and in low tailwater tests. The differences of
stress and fatigue between various treatment and control groups were manifested by
differences of descaling and mortality. We believe that the extent of descaling and
mortality provides a relative index to the degree of stress and fatigue generated during
passage through various sections of the bypass at the various flow conditions tested.
Fatigue and stress appear to substantially increase with the distance of migration through
the collection channel. However, the greatest increase occurred between the north end of
46
Table 9. Fork length of fish released compared to descaled and dead fish recovered from the trap-net; October 1992 tests.
Descaled Sample Mean fork length Sample
Groupa no. mm
Coho salmon tests
Test population; n = 200, mean fork length= 110. 7 mm
Bypass system 1,490 111.7
Control 168 115.3
Chinook salmon tests
Test population; n = 200, mean fork length= 132.1 mm
Bypass system
Control
194
48
135.8
136.5
a Includes fish released at all locations within the bypass system.
no.
430
62
899
113
Mortalities Mean fork length
mm
107.4
105.5
130.3
127.5
47
the collection channel at Turbine Unit 17 and the downwell (Fig. 3). Within that section of
the bypass, there is 46 m of collection channel where the downstream velocity is greater
than 0.6 m/second, a control weir, an energy dissipation area of about 15 m with heavy
turbulence, and a dewatering screen 17 m long with screened area of about 72 m2 where
velocities were about 1 m/second.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The trap-net did not provide sufficient sanctuary to subyearling salmon to allow benign
recovery of test fish at moderate and low tailwater elevations. The maximum flow of
the 0.9-m diameter bypass conduit (6 to 6.6 m/second) and direction of flow caused
excessive water velocity at the downstream edge of the net (1.1 to 1.5 m/second). We
believe that the size of the net was about maximum for hauling by hand, and that it
would be necessary to substantially increase the size to eliminate impingement of
subyearlings at moderate and low tailwater conditions.
2) Bypass passage appears to cause significant stress. However, loss of scales and direct
mortality observed in 1991 tests were ascribed to problems associated with the recovery
of test fish and not to bypass conditions. During summertime low river flows, the
resulting low tailwater elevations appear to substantially increase flow velocity and
therefore the negative effects of net recovery.
3) Based on differences of descaling and mortality among test fish groups released at
different locations in the bypass system, we speculate that fatigue and stress increased
with increased distance of passage.
48
4) Based on eight tests in October 1992, we assume that the effects of passage through the
90° short radius elbow at the bottom of the downwell were not substantial.
5) Based on 17 tests in October 1992, we assume that air entrainment in the effluent of the
bypass conduit is a result of air entrapment in the downwell regardless of the water
surface elevation. With the present bypass system design, air entrainment could not be
eliminated in normal operation of the system. Although documentation is poor, air
entrainment apparently caused no substantial impairment to the test fish.
6) Effects of high vs. low downwell elevation could not be assessed because of the water
velocity change in the trap-net. Other methods of recovery must be employed to make
that assessment.
7) From visual assessment of air volume in the bypass effluent, we concluded that there
was no effect from a full or empty sampling room discharge pipe. Also, there appeared
to be no effect of full or empty sampling room discharge pipe on fish.
8) It is probable that reduced survival of test fish bypassed through the Bonneville Dam
Second Powerhouse in the summers of 1987-1990 resulted from both physical impacts of
passage through the bypass discharge conduit and predation during migration through the
tailrace. Physical problems within the bypass conduit will be remedied in so far as
possible, but since the conduit is 287 m long, mostly 0.9-m diameter, and partially
submerged, it may be difficult to identify and correct all problem areas. However, the
inherent impact from predation following egress from the system cannot easily be ·
remedied. Predation may be an insurmountable problem as a result of 1) increased stress
from passage causing diminished avoidance reactions [laboratory studies showed that
severe stress or severe turbulence caused loss of equilibrium and abnormal avoidance
49
behavior (Groves 1972, Sigismondi and Weber 1988, Olla and Davis 1992)]; 2) point
source release from the bypass inducing predators to congregate; 3) migration through
the low velocity tailrace basin providing a large area of suitable habitat for northern
pikeminnow; and 4) a bypass outlet location on the north side of a tailrace that angles to
the south about 90°, tending to direct outmigrants shoreward toward rip-rap areas that
are prime habitat for northern pikeminnow.
9) From CWT passage survival tests conducted from 1987 to 1990, estimated survival for
test fish released 2.5 km downstream from the dam was significantly higher than for fish
released into the bypass system. The physical conditions at the downstream release
location that most likely produced the increase were 1) high water velocity--1.5 to
2.1 m/sec; 2) long distance from shore--about 100 m; 3) rapid downstream dispersal of
fish resulting in decreased juvenile salmon density in the migration route and increased
time for orientation prior to encountering predators; 4) release in a reach of river where
current direction was parallel to the shoreline; 5) lack of predator attraction from a
continuous egress of juvenile salmon at a single location or along a localized migration
route; and 6) nighttime releases which minimized avian predation.
50
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Throughout this study, test fish were provided by other agencies. We thank Trent
Stickell and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife personnel at Bonneville, Oxbow,
Irrigon, Cascade, and Lookingglass Hatcheries and Jack Bodel and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service personnel at Little White Salmon Hatchery for their extended efforts at rearing and
loading fish for transport to the test site. Also, we thank Brad Ebby and his assistants of
COE at McNary Dam for collecting and transporting chinook salmon juveniles to the test
site.
During the tests, normal routines of smolt monitoring at Bonneville Dam were disrupted;
our thanks are recorded for the help and consideration of Scott Carlon and NMFS
personnel. . We owe a special debt of gratitude to Darrell Hunt of the Bonneville Project
and his staff of operators for advice and assistance in regulating water flows through the
bypass system during tests.
51
REFERENCES
Cochran, W. G. and G. M. Cox. 1957. Experimental designs. J. Wiley Inc., New York. 617 p.
Congleton, J. L. T. C. Bjornn, C. A. Robertson, J. L. Irving, and R. R. Ringe. 1984. Evaluating the effects of stress on the viability of chinook salmon smolts transported from the Snake River to the ·columbia River estuary. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract DACW68-83-/C-0029. (Available from College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843.)
Dawley, E. M., R. D. Ledgerwood, T. H. Blahm, C. W. Sims, J. T. Durkin, R. A. Kim, A. E. Rankis, G. E. Monan, and F. J. Ossiander. 1986. Migrational characteristics,biological observations, and relative survival of juvenile salmonids entering theColumbia River, estuary, 1966-1983. Report to Bonneville Power Administration,Contract DE-Al 79-84BP39652, 256p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries ScienceCenter, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
Dawley, E. M., R. D. Ledgerwood, L. G. Gilbreath, P. J. Bentley, and S. J. Grabowski. 1993. Do bypass systems protect juvenile salmonids at dams? In: Fish passage policy and technology. Proceedings of a symposium, Bioengineering Section, Am. Fish. Soc. September 1993, p. 161-168.
Faler, M. P., L. M. Miller, and K. I. Welke. 1988. Effects of variation in flow on distributions of northern squawfish in the Columbia River below McNary Dam. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 8:30-35.
Gilbreath, L. G. In prep. Relative survival of subyearling chinook salmon that have passed Bonneville Dam via the Second Powerhouse turbines or bypass system: adult recoveries through 1998. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract E96910013. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
Gilbreath, L. G., E. M. Dawley, R. D. Ledgerwood, P. J. Bentley, and S. J. Grabowski. 1993. Relative survival of subyearling chinook salmon that have passed Bonneville Dam via the Second Powerhouse turbines or bypass system: adult recoveries through 1991. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract E96910013, 29 p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
Groves, A. B. 1972. Effects of hydraulic shearing action on juvenile salmon. Unpublished manuscript. 7 p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
52
Johnson, R. L. 1976. Fingerling fish mortalities at high water velocities. Reports 22 and 23 in: Fourth progress report on fisheries engineering research program, 1966-1972. North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR.
Ledgerwood, R. D., E. M. Dawley, L. G. Gilbreath, P. J. Bentley, B. P. Sandford, and M. H. Schiewe. 1990. Relative survival of subyearling chinook salmon which havepassed Bonneville Dam via the spillway or the Second Powerhouse turbines or bypasssystem in 1989, with comparisons to 1987 and 1988. Report to U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Contract E85890024/E86890097, 64 p. + Appendixes. (Available fromNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
Ledgerwood, R. D., E. M. Dawley, L. G. Gilbreath, P. J. Bentley, B. P. Sandford, and M. H. Schiewe. 1991. Relative survival of subyearling chinook salmon which havepassed through the turbines or bypass system of Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse,1990. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract E86900104, 33 p. +Appendixes. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd.E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
Maule, A. G., C. B. Schreck, C. S. Bradford, and B. A. Barton. 1988. Physiological effects of collecting and transporting emigrating juvenile chinook salmon past dams on the Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 117:245-261.
Monk, B. H., B. P. Sandford, and J. G. Williams. 1991. Evaluation of the juvenile fish collection, transportation, and bypass facility at Little Goose Dam, 1990. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract E86900057, 28 p. + Appendixes. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
Oligher, R. C., and I. J. Donaldson. 1966. Fish Passage through turbines; tests at Big Cliff Hydroelectric Plant. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA 99362-9265. Progress Report 6, 15 p.
Olla, B. L., and M. W. Davis. 1992. Comparison of predator avoidance and capabilities with corticosteroid levels induced by stress in juvenile coho salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:544-547.
Passonneau, J. F. 1974. Fluorimetric method. Pages 1468-1472 in H. U. Bergmeyer ( editor). Methods of enzymatic analysis, 2nd English edition. Academic Press, New York.
Petersen, R. G. 1985. Design and analysis of experiments. Marcel Dekker. New York.
Poe, T. P., H. C. Hansel, L. Vigg, D. E. Palmer, and L. A. Prendergast. 1991. Feeding of predaceous fishes on out-migrating juvenile salmonids in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120:405-420.
53
Redding, J. M., C. B. Schreck, E. K. Birks, and R. D. Ewing. 1984. Cortisol and its effects on plasma thyroid hormone and electrolyte concentrations in fresh water and during seawater acclimation in yearling coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 56:146-155.
Sigismondi, L. A., and L. J. Weber. 1988. Changes in avoidance response time of juvenile chinook salmon exposed to multiple acute handling stress. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 117:196-201.
Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry, 2nd Edition. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. 776 p.
Summit Technology Consulting Engineers, Inc., P.S. 1990. Bonneville Dam 2nd Powerhouse juvenile trapping facility, conceptual designs. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract SB08920694, 12 p. + Appendixes. (Available from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, P.O. Box 2946, Portland, OR 97204).
Turner, A. R., D. M. Shew, L. M. Beck, R. J. Stansell,· and R. D. Peters. 1984. Evaluation of adult fish passage at Bonneville Lock and Dam in 1983. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Operations Division, Fisheries Field Unit, Cascade Locks, Oregon. 90 p.
Vigg, S., T. P. Poe, L. A. Prendergast, and H. C. Hansel. 1991. Rates of consumption of juvenile salmonids and alternative prey fish by northern squawfish, walleye, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120:421-428.
Ward, D. L., M. P. Zimmerman, R. M. Parker, and S. S. Smith. 1992. Development of a system-wide predator control program: indexing, fisheries evaluation, and harvesting technology development. 30 p. In C. F. Willis and A. A. Nigro (editors), Development of a system-wide predator control program: stepwise implementation of a predation index, predator control fisheries, and evaluation plan in the Columbia River Basin. Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract DE-BI79-90BP07084.
Wedemeyer, G. A., and W. T. Yasutake. 1977. Clinical methods for the assessment of the effects of environmental stress in fish health. U.S. Fish.Wild!. Serv. Tech. Pap. 89.
55
M.�l!i)ll)lCES . .
Appendix
Methods
57
Table 1. Statistical assessment of stress related blood serum parameters of hatchery reared subyearling chinook salmon after passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 13.5-17.5 ft and water temperature 10.6-1 l.7° C.
Cortisol, glucose and lactate levels were measured from samples of about
size ten on each of four days (two days for lactate> for three treatments
(bypass, egress and net) at seven times (pre-experiment, hour O post
experiment, hour 2, hour 4, hour 6, hour 18 and hour 42). Also, one day of
hour 66 was measured but I ignored this in the analyses. All analyses were
done on the·mean of each sample for �ach day/treatment/time combination as
experimental replication was done at the "day level" not at the "fish level:
Treatment and time comoarisons were done using two-way ANOVA and
Fisher's Protected Least Sianificant Difference (FPLSD) procedures. A
significant treatment by time intera�tion term in the ANOVA would indicate the
cortisol (or glucose or lactate) level resoonse �urve over time was different
for different treatments. A siqniticant treatment effect would indicate t��
the time response curves for at least one of the treatments was shifted higher
or lower than for the otlle.rs. A significant time effect would indicate that
at Jeast one �f the measured times had a higher or lower level than did the
others.
58
Appendix Table 1. Continued. Plasma Cortisol
Pre Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour o.6' 2 q 6 18 ll2
--------------------------------------------------------
Bypass Egress Net
ANDVA Source
Treatment Time Tr X Ti Error Total
Means
3.6 1 ll. 7 20.7
df
2
6 12 63 83
Treatment Mean
Net Bypass Egress
63. 9•71. 7•b85. 5 b
120.5 102.6 lLI0.2 123.5 72.1 9ll.6
Sum of
Squares
6679.9 75Ll85.8 10190.4 Ll19Ll2.LI
13Ll298.LI
76.7 M. 768.5
Mean Square
70.9 72. 256.3
3339.9 12581.0
8Ll9.2 665.8
71.2 56.6 92.5 70.6 69.1 65.9
F p
5.0 0.0095 18.9 <.0001 1.3 0.2553
---------... -------
Time Mean -----------------
Pre 13. o•Hour Ll2 ·M. 4 bHour q 70.0 bHour 6 73 .1 bHour 18 77. 6 bHour 2 106.9 C
Hour 0 110.9 C
59
Appendix Table 1. Continued. Plasma Glucose
Pre Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour o.s- 2 4 6 18 42
--------------------------------------------------------
Bypass Egress Net
ANOVA Source
Treatment Time Tr X Ti Error Total.
55.2 57. 553.4
df
2 6
12 63 83
85.3 87.5 79.8 90.9 80.5 82.5
Sum of Souares
131ll. 5 7435.2 867.1
6723. 5 163-l!O. 3
86.5 79.4 72.8
11ean Souare
81.2 81.3 71.3
657.3 1239.2
72.3 106.7
79.7 77.2 91.6 84.2 73.4 66.7
F' p
6.2 0.0036 11.6 <.0001 0.7 0.7668
---------------------------------------------------------. ..
Means
Treatment Mean
Net Bypass
Egress
71. 5•78. 9 b80. 7 b
Time Mean -----------------
Pre Hour 42 Hour 6 Hour 4 Hour 18 Hour 0 Hour 2
55. 4•76. 0 b
77. 9 b
79. 6 be
81. 6 be
81 • 9 be
87.0 e
60
Appendix Table 1. Continued. Plasma Lactic Acid
Pre Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour o.sr 2 4 6 18 42
--------------------------------------------------------
Bypass 21.6 79.8 44.5 29.6 24.5 24.1 24.0 Egress 23.3 81.0 51.3 34.5 26.1 18. 'I 2'1.2Net 21.6 51.0 34.1 29.3 28.5 19. 1 2'1.0-----------------------------------------------------
---
ANOVA Source
Treatment Time Tr X Ti Error Total
Means
Treatment
Net Bypass Egress
df
2 6
12 63 83
Mean
29.6
35.'I � 37.0
Sum of Squares
'l 16. 5 11467.8 1128.6 238'1.0
15396.8
r1ean Square
208.3
1911.3 9'l.O
113.5
Time
F
1.8 16,8 0.8
Mean -----------------
Hour 18 20. s•
Pre 22 .1 • Hour 42 2'1. 1 aHour 6 26.3. Hour q 3 l • l abHour 2 43. 3 bHour 0 70.6
p
0. 184'l<.00010. 62.24
C
61
Appendix Table 2. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery reared yearling chinook salmon-Passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 17 ft and water temperature 5.5 °C.
Recov� infonnationb
lnjureddDelayed
Release infonnationc Catch Descaled Dead mortalitt
Date Site No. No. % % % % %
28Mar By 600 578 96.3 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.0 Eg 600 541 90.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nt 600 619 103.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
28Mar By 600 547 91.2 2.2 0.4 1.1 0.0 Eg 600 528 88.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 Nt 600 598 99.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
29Mar By 600 610 101.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 By--killed 300 296 98.7 Eg 600 592 98.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nt 600 531 88.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0
29Mar By 600 608 101.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 By-killed 300 288 96.0 Eg 600 539 89.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nt 600 604 100.7 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8
Total/Mean(SE) By 2,400 2,343 97.6(2.5) 1.1(0.5) 0.4(0.2) 0.5(0.2) 0.2(0.2) By--killed 600 584 97.4(1.0) Eg 2,400 2,200 91.7(2.4) 0.3(0.1) 0.0(0.0) 0.1(0.1) 0.0 Nt 2,400 2,352 98.0(3.0) 0.5(0.2) 0.1(0.1) 0.2(0.1) 0.2(0.2)
a Yearling spring chinook salmon obtained from Lookingglass Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) mean fork length 126 mm.
b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
c Site codes are By = 10 m upstream from the downwell, Eg = egress hose release, Nt =surface release into recovery net.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e All injured and descaled and approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held 48 hours for assessment of delayed mortality.
62
Appendix Table 3. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery reared juvenile steelheada passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 15.5-16.9 ft and water temperature 6.0 ° C.
Recov� informationb
lnjuredd Delayed
Release informationc Catch Descaled Dead mortalitye
Date Site No. No. % % % % %
2Apr By 400 169 42.3 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 By--killed 300 282 94.0 Nt 400 399 99.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
2Apr By 400 232 58.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nt 400 412 103.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0
4Apr By 400 405 101.3£ 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 By--killed 300 288 96.0 Nt 400 474 118.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4Apr By 400 392 98.0f 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Nt 400 340 85.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total/Mean(SE) 74.9£(7.3) 0.2(0.2) By 1,600 1,198 0.3(0.1) 0.1(0.1) 0.0
By--killed 600 570 95.0(1.0) Nt 1,600 1,625 101.6(3.4) 0.1(0.1) 0.4(0.2) 0.0(0.0) 0.0
a Juvenile steelhead obtained from Irrigon Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) mean fork length 193 mm.
b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
c Site codes are By = 10 m upstream from the downwell, Eg = egress hose release, Nt =surface release into recovery net.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e All injured and descaled and approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held 48 hours for assessment of delayed mortality.
r Because fish were delaying in the bypass channel, releases made on 4 April were madedirectly into the discharge conduit.
63
Appendix Table 4. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery reared juvenile coho salmona passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 17 .5-18 ft and water temperature 6.5-7 ° C.
Recov� informationb
lnjuredd
Delayed Release informationc Catch Descaled Dead mortali:tt
Date Site No. No. % % % % %
11 Apr By 600 584 97.3 2.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 Eg 600 539 89.8 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Nt 600 598 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0
11 Apr By 600 613 102.2 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.0 Eg 600 561 93.5 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Nt 600 594 99.0 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.0
12Apr By 600 611 101.8 3.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 By--killed 225 215 95.6 Eg 600 576 96.0 1.2 0.3 0.2 2.0 Nt 600 605 100.8 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0
12Apr By 600 582 97.0 2.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 By--killed 300 291 97.0 Eg 600 544 90.7 2.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 Nt 600 574 95.7 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0
Tota1/Mean(SE) By 2,400 2,390 99.6(1.4) 3.0(0.3) 0.6(0.1) 0.2(0.1) 0.0 By--killed 525 506 96.3(0.7) Eg 2,400 2,200 92.5(1.4) 1.9(0.2) 0.3(0.1) 0.1(0.1) 0.8(0.5) Nt 2,400 2,371 98.8(1.1) 0.8(0.3) 0.5(0.1) 0.2(0.1) 0.0
a Yearling coho salmon obtained from Bonneville Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) mean fork length 133 mm.
b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
c Site codes are By = bypass entrance release, Eg = egress hose release, Nt = surface release into recovery net.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e All injured and descaled and approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held 48 hours for assessment of delayed mortality.
64
Appendix Table 5. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among river-run yearling coho salmona passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 19.5 ft and water temperature 9.0°C.
Recov� informationb
Delayed Release informationc Catch Descaled lnjuredd Dead mortalitye
Date Site No. No. % % % % %
lMay By 400 400 100.0 12.3 1.0 0.3 1.0 By--killed 300 300 100.0 Nt 174 173 99.4 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.0
2May By 397 350 88.2 4.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Nt 0
TotaJ/Mean(SE) By 797 750 94.1(5.9) 8.5(3.9) 1.2(0.6) 0.2(0.2) 0.5(0.5) By--killed 300 300 100.0 Nt 174 173 99.4 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.0
a Yearling coho salmon obtained from the Columbia River at Bonneville Dam. Mean fork length was 137 mm.
b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
c Site codes are By = 10 m upstream from the downwell and Nt = surface release intorecovery net. Previous series of tests indicated no differences between net released and egress (Eg) released fish; to decrease the number necessary for tests, the egress release was not used.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e All injured and descaled and approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held 48 hours for assessment of delayed mortality.
65
Appendix Table 6. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among river-run yearling chinook salmon• passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 19.5 ft. and water temperature 9 °C.
Release information c
Date Site No.
lMay By 381 By--killedr i5o Nt 487
2May By 387 By--killedr 150 Nt 387
7May By 472 Nt 486
7May By 474 Nt 459
Total/Mean(SE) By 1,714 By--killedr 300 Nt 1,819
Recov� informationb
Catch Descaled Injuredd Dead No. % % % %
379 99.5 13.0 0.4 0.8 150 100.0 488 100.2 0.2 0.9 0.9
364 94.1 4.9 0.4 0.0 150 100.0 371 95.9 0.4 0.0 0.0
402 85.2 18.0 0.8 1.1 474 97.5 0.3 0.0 0.6
426 89.9 10.6 0.4 0.4 233 50.8 0.4 0.7 0.0
1,571 92.2(3.0) 11.6(2.7) 0.5(0.1) 0.6(0.2) 300 100.0
1,566 86.1(11.8) 0.3(0.0) 0.4(0.2) 0.4(0.2)
Delayed mortaliuc
%
0.1
0.0
5.4
1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0
1.4(1.3)
0.5(0.3)
a Yearling spring/summer chinook salmon obtained from the Columbia River at McNary Dam. Mean fork length for test dates 1 and 2 May was 167 mm and for 7 May was 151 mm.
b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number. About 100 fish from each treatment were removed and examined for stress. These fish were not used in the descaling and injury evaluations.
c Site codes are By = 10 m upstream from the downwell and Nt = surface release into recovery net. Previous series of tests indicated no differences between net released and egress (Eg) released fish; to decrease the number of fish necessary for tests, the egress release was not used.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e All injured and descaled and approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held 48 hours for assessment of delayed mortality.
r Heavily sedated and killed hatchery reared coho salmon were used as surrogates for moribundchinook to evaluate their recovery rates.
66
Appendix Table 7. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery reared subyearling chinook salmon'passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 19.5 ft and water temperature 18.3 °C.
Recov� information
Release infonnationc Catch Descaled lnjuredd Delayed
Dead mortali�e
Date Site No. No. % % % % %
10 July By channel 400 319 79.8 2.2 0.3 11.9 6.8 By conduit 400 351 87.8 1.4 . 0.3 5.1 3.5 By--killed 399 340 85.2 Eg 400 313 78.3 1.3 0.0 4.1 1.1 Nt 400 393 98.3 1.3 0.0 0.8 1.8
10 July By channel 400 362 90.5 1.9 0.0 3.3 4.2 By conduit 400 351 87.8 2.6 0.6 2.6 5.3 By--killed 400 400 100.0 Eg 399 365 91.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 3.0 Nt 400 329 82.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.0
11 July By channel 399 296 74.2 3.4 0.3 4.0 3.0 By conduit 399 353 88.5 3.7 0.3 3.7 3.5 By-killed 400 378 94.5 Eg 382 280 73.3 1.4 0.4 1.8 1.2 Nt 400 341 85.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1
11 July By channel 400 375 93.8 4.5 0.3 3.2 7.6 By conduit 400 318 79.5 2.5 0.0 0.6 4.0 By-killed 400 388 97.0 Eg 399 350 87.7 3.1 0.3 1.1 0.0 Nt 400 304 76.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9
Total/Mean(SE) By channel 1,599 1,352 84.6(4.6) 3.0(0.6) 0.2(0.1) 5.6(2.1) 5.4(1.1) By conduit 1,599 1,373 85.9(2.1) 2.6(0.5) 0.3(0.1) 3.0(0.9) 4.1(0.4) By--killed 1,599 15,06 94.2(3.2) Eg 1,580 1,308 82.6(4.2) 1.6(0.5) 0.2(0.1) 1.9(0.8) 1.3(0.6) Nt 1,600 1,367 85.5(4.7) 0.4(0.3) 0.0 0.5(0.3) 1.2(0.2)
a Subyearling upriver bright fall chinook salmon obtained from Bonneville Hat.chery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) mean fork length 84.9 mm. To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
C Site codes are By channel = about 10 m upstream from the downwell; By conduit = about 20 m downstream from the downwell; By--killed = fish intentionally killed and released 10 m upstream from the downwell; Eg = egress hose; Nt = surface release into recovery net.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e All injured and descaled and approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held 48 hours for assessment of delayed mortality.
67
Appendix Table 8. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among river-run subyearling chinook salmon-passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 15-18.5 ft and water temperature 18.9°C.
Recov� informationb
lnjuredd Delayed
Release informationc Catch Descaled Dead mortali!Y Date Site No. No. % % % % %
16 July By 376 313 83.2 25.2 1.6 4.9 8.1 Nt 345 315 91.3 2.3 0.0 1.6 2.0
16 July By 330 238 72.1 35.1 7.0 1.7 10.8 By--killed 798 757 94.9 Nt 329 316 96.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 7.5
17 July By 319 317 99.4 22.9 4.8 1.2 11.0 Nt 321 316 98.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.1
17 July By 323 275 85.1 31.2 1.6 2.4 1.0 By--killed 400 363 90.1 Nt 372 345 92.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Total/Mean(SE) By 1,348 1,143 84.9(5.6) 28.6(2.9) 3.8(1.3) 2.4(0.9) 7.7(2.3) By--killed 1,198 1,120 92.5(2.4) Nt 1,367 1,292 94.6(1.6) 1.4(0.6) 0.2(0.2) 1.2(0.8) 2.8(1.5)
a Subyearling fall chinook salmon obtained from the Columbia River at Bonneville Dam. Mean fork length was 99.5 mm.
b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
c Site codes are By= release into gallery 10 m upstream of overfall weir and downwell; By conduit = about 20 m downstream from downwell; By--killed = fish intentionally killed and released 10 m upstream from the downwell; Nt = surface release into recovery net.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e All injured and descaled and approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held 48 hours for assessment of delayed mortality.
68
Appendix Table 9. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery reared subyearling chinook salmona passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 9-10.5 ft and water temperature 21.1 °C.
Recove;[I: information Delayed
Release informationc Catch Descaled Injuredd Dead mortality8
Date Site No. No. % % % % %
3 Sept By channel 374 323 86.4 3.7 0.0 6.5 5.2 By conduit 394 341 86.5 1.5 1.2 2.3 1.1 By--killed 400 386 96.9 Eg 370 252 68.1 2.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 Nt 393 381 96.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9
4Sept By channel 378 373 98.7 3.2 1.3 7.0 6.3 By conduit 375 355 94.7 2.2 0.6 3.4 0.0 By--killed 395 328 83.0 Eg 383 282 73.6 3.2 0.7 0.4 2.1 Nt 421 414. 98.3 0.2 0.7 0.5 3.9
5 Sept' By channel 366 315 86.1 10.0 0.6 49.2 1.0 By conduit 381 336 88.2 8.9 0.0 23.2 0.0 By--killed 400 391 97.8Eg 389 316 81.2 2.4 0.0 6.3 1.0 Nt 380 386 101.6 0.3 0.0 0.8 2.0
5 Septr By channel 394 362 91.9 9.0 1.1 51.1 4.2 By conduit 378 385 101.9 4.3 0.0 39.5 2.9 By--killed 400 411 102.8 Eg 362 281 77.6 0.4 0.0 12.1 0.0 Nt 385 385 100.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.0
Total/Mean(SE) By channel 1,512 1,373 90.8(3.0) 6.5(1.8) 0.8(0.3) 28.5(12.5) 4.2(1.1) By conduit 1,528 1,417 92.8(3.5) 4.2(1.7) 0.5(0.3) 17.1(8.9) 1.0(0.7) By--killed 1,595 1,516 95.0(4.2) Eg 1,504 1,131 75.1(2.8) 2.1(0.6) 0.2(0.2) 4.8(2.8) 0.8(0.5) Nt 1,579 1,566 99.2(1.0) 0.1(0.1) 0.2(0.2) 1.5(0.9) 2.5(0.5)
a Subyearling upriver bright stock fall chinook salmon obtained from Bonneville Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife); mean fork length 116 mm. To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
C Site codes are By channel = 10 m upstream from the downwell; Bypass conduit = about 20 m downstream from downwell; Eg = egress hose release; Nt = surface release into recovery net. Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e About 100 healthy fish from each release were held for 48-hour delayed mortality. f Descale and injury percentages for 5 September tests were calculated using the total
number recovered less mortality.
69
Appendix Table 10. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery reared subyearling coho salmon• passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 9- 9.5 ft and water temperature 16.5 °C.
Recov� infonnationb
lnjuredd Delayed
Release informationc Catch · Descaled Dead mortali!t Date Site No. No. % % % % %
220ct By channel 386 332 86.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 By conduit 400 343 85.7 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 Nt 400 382 95.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
23 Oct By channel 400 232 58.0 1.3 0.4 31.5 1.0 By conduit 400 277 69.3 1.1 0.0 19.4 0.0 Nt 400 388 97.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0
240ct By channel 400 324 81.0 1.8 0.3 1.8 2.2 By conduit 400 351 87.8 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 Nt 400 372 93.0 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0
25 Oct By channel 400 378 94.5 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 By conduit 400 391 97.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Nt 399 401 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total/Mean(SE) By channel 1,586 1,266 79.9(6.8) 0.9(0.4) 0.3(0.1) 8.5(6.6) 0.8(0.5) By conduit 1,600 1,362 85.1(5.1) 0.7(0.1) 0.1(0.1) 5.5(4.1) 0.0(-) Nt 1,599 1,543 96.3(1.2) 0.2(0.1) 0.1(0.1) 0.7(0.3) 0.0(-)
a Subyearling coho salmon obtained from Cascade Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) mean fork length 125 mm.
b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number.
c Site codes are By channel = upstream from weir; By conduit = about 20 m downstream from downwell; Nt = surface release into recovery net.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e All injured and descaled and approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held 48 hours for assessment of delayed mortality.
70
Appendix Table 11. Statistical assessment of stress related blood serum parameters of river-run yearling chinook salmon after passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 19.5 ft and water temperature 9 °C.
Methods
Cortisol, glucose and lactic acid levels were measured from samples of
chinook salmon of about size twelve on one day for two treatments (acute and
chronic) at six times (hobr 0, hour 2, hour �, hour 6, hour 18 and hour q2).
Since there was n·o replication, all analyses had to be done using only fish
to-fish sampling variation.
Cortisol, glucose and lactic acid levels were also measured from samples
of about size twelve on each of four days for two treatments (bypass and net)
at seven times (pre-experiment, ·hour O post-experiment, hour 2, hour q, hour
6, hour 18 and hour q2). All analyses were done on the mean of each sample
·for-each day/treatment/time combination as experimental replication was done
at the "day level" not at the "fish level!
Treatment and time comparisons for both experiments were done using two
way ANOVA and Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference (FPLSD)
procedures (Petersen 1985). A significant treatment by time interaction term
in the ANOVA would indicate the cortisol (or glucose or lactate) level
response _c.urv� _over time was di_f_ferel't for different treatments. A
significant treatment �rfect would indicate tb.tthe time response curves for
one of the treatments was shifted hioher or lower than for the others. A
significant time effect �ould in�icate that at least one of the measyred times
had a higher or lower level than did the others. �f a significant interaction
was detected, treatment and time effects would not be analyzed.
71
Appendix Table 11. Continued. Plasma Cortisol
Pre Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour
0 2 4 6 18 42 --------------------------------------------------------
Bypass Net
59.7 122.3 210.2 265.2 255.0 106.1 74.4
58.2 66.9 174.4 196.9 192.4 67.3 63.0 --------------------------------------------------------
ANOVA
Source df Sum of
Squares Mean
Square F p
----------------------------------------------------------
Treatment 1 21422.5 21422.5 23.8· <0.0001 Time 6 276122.4 46020.4 51.1 <0.0001 Tr X Ti 6 7726.6 1287.8 : 1. .q 0.2258
Error 42 37799.6 900.0
Total 55 3.113071. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------
Means
Treatment Mean ---------------.-
Time Mean -----------------
Pre 58.9• Net
Bypass 117.0 ..
156.1 b Hour .112 68.9•b �----�----------- Hour 18 86.7•1>
Hour 0 94.6 b
Hour 2 192.3
Hour 6 223.7
Hour 4 231.1 -----------------
Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour
0 2 4 6 18 42 -- ------�-------JT _______________________________ _
Acute
Chronic
68.9 2.117.0 256.0 239.0 56.2 23.8
55. l; '242. 8 320. 1 298. 5 383. 8 329. 0----------------·- --------------------------------
C
ANOVA
Source df Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
F p
d
d
Treatment
Time
Tr X Ti
Error
Total
1 403004.4
5 875828.0
5 616688.8
403044.4
175165."6
123337.8
100.3 <0.0001
43.6 <0.0001
30.7 <0.0001
Acute.
125 502160.3
136 2461250.7
Mean Chronic
4017.3
Mean ----------------- -----------------
Hour 42 23.8 .. Hour 0 55.1 ..
Hour 18 56.2 .. Hour 2 242.8
Hour 0 68.9 .. Hour 6 298.5
Hour 6 239.0 b Hour q 320.1
Hour 2 247.0 b Hour 42 329.0
Hour 4,. 256.0 b Hour 18 383.8 ·---------------- -----------------
b
C
C
C
d
Appendix Table 11. Continued. 72
Plasma Lactic Acid
Pre Hour Hour Hour
0 2 4
Hour Hour Hour
6 18 42 --------------------------------------------------------
Bypass
Net - · ! .·
36.2
33.0
111.6 76.0
51.9 35.4
50.2
36.4
47.2 42.2 43.5
35.9 35.4 33.2 ---------------------------------. ----------------------
ANOVA
Source df· Sum of Squares
Mean
Square
F p
----------------------------------------------------------
Treatment 1 6057.6 6057.6 80.3 <0.0001 Time 6 12939.7 2156.6 28.6 <0.0001 Tr X Ti 6 5329.9 888.3 11.8 ·<0.0001 Error 42 3169.4 75.5 Total 55 27496.6 ----------------------------------------------------------
Bypass Mean Net Mean ----------------- -----------------
Pre 36.2" Pre 33.0 .. Hour 18 42.2 .. b Hour '12 33.2 .. Hour 42 43.5 .. b Hour 2 35.4•
Hour 6 47.2•b Hour 18 35.'I .. Hour 4 50,;2 b Hour 6 35.9 .. Hour 2 76.0 C Hour 4 36.'I& Hour-0 ·� ... ··· 111.6 d Hour 0 51.9 b
----------------- - ·---------------
·Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour
0 2 4 6 18 42 -----·---�·---------------------------------------
Acute
Chronic
ANOVA
Source
23.7 'l'l.'I 33.1 39.0 30.2 19.2
2'1.0 83.6 44.5 54.4 85.9 109.6
df Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
F p
----· ··�-·------------------------------------------ ·-----
Treatment 1 32967.6 32967.6 216.9 <0.0001
Time 5 24792.1 4958.4 32.6 <0.0001
Tr X Ti 5 25924.5 5184.9 ·3'1.1 <0.0001
··Error !25 19003.2 152.0
Total 136 102172.6 .-----·----------------------------------------------------
Acute Mean Chronic Mean ----------------- -----------------
Hour 42 19.2 .. Hour 0 24.0 ..
Hour 0 23.8 .. b Hour 4 '14. 5 b
Hour 18 30.2 be Hour 6 5'1.4 b
Hour 4 33.1 be Hour 2 83.6 C
Hour ·6 39.0 cd Hour 18 85.9 C
Hour 2 44.4 d Hour 42 109.6 d
�---�-�J�-�------ -----------------
73
Appendix Table 11. Continued. Plasma Glucose
Hour H9ur Hour Pre Hour 0 2 4 6
Hour Hour 18 42
--------------------------------------------------------
Bypass Net · :
82.4 91.6 82.0 101.9 100.4 154.5 104.0
73.2 88.1 77.5 77.2 89.2 94.0 79.0
--------------------------------------------------------
ANOVA Source df Sum of
Squares Mean Square
F p
----------------------------------------------------------
Treatment 1 5495.3 5495.3 29.2 <0.0001
Time 6 11274.7 1879.2 10.0 <0.0001
Tr X Ti 6 4774.5 795.7 ,4. 2 0.0021
Error 42 7911.6 188.4
Total 55 29456.1 ----------------------------------------------------------
Bypass Mean Net Mean ----------------- -----------------
Hour 2 82.0"' Pre 73.2"'
Pr.e 82.A "'b Hour 4 77.2&b
Hour 0 9L6abc Hour 2 77.5 .. b
Hai.tr 6:-: 100.4"'bc Hour 42 79.0&b
Hour 4 101.9 b C: Hour 0 88.l&b
Hour 42- 104.0 C Hour 6 89.2 ... b
Hour-18.,�- ··· 154.5 d Hour 18 94.0 b ----------------- - . --------------
Acu.te, Chronic
ANOVA Source
Treatment Time Tr X Ti Error Total
Acute
Hour· Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour 0 2 4 6 18 42
80.2 109.3 129.2 137.2 122.B 72.6
77.3 69.B 81.6 88.6 260.2 352.1
df Sum of Squares
1 28627.1
5 219658.1
5 3974•!!2.1
125 171715.0
136 810ll47.2
Mean Square
28627.1
73931.6
79488.ll
1373.7
Mean Chronic Mean
F
20.8
32.0
5.7.9
----------------- -----------------
Hour 42 72 o 6A Hour 2 69.8"
Hour 0 80.2"' Hour 0 77 .3·
Hour 2 109.3 .. b Hour q 81.6·
Hour 18 122.8 b Hour 6 88.6•c
Hour 4 129.2 b Hour 18 260.2 b
Hour 6 137.2 b Hour ll2 352 .1 C
- ------------� .
-� -----------------
p
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
74
Appendix Table 12. Statistical assessment of stress related blood serum parameters of river-run subyearling chinook salmon after passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1991; at tailwater elevation 15-18.5 ft and water temperature 18.9 ° C.
Methods
Cortisol, glucose and lactic acid levels were measured from samples of
chinook salmon of size ten on one day for two treatments (acute and chronic)
at five times (hour O, hour 2, hour 4, hour 6, and hour 18). Hour 42 was
sampled only for the acute treatment. One sample cp�stituted the response for
hour O tor both treatments. Sine� there was no replication. all analyses had
to be done using only fish-to-fish sampling variation. The hour O sample was
not included in the analyses of variance since it provided no information on
sam_Q..Ung error. however, it was included for subseauent comparison procedures.
Cortisol, glucose and lactic acid levels were also measured from samoles
of about size twelve on each of four days for two treatments (bypass and neti
at seven times (pre-experiment, hour O post-experiment. hour 2, hour 4, hour
6, hour 18 and hour 42). All analyses were done on the mean of each sample
for each day/treatment/ti.me combination as experimental replication was·done
at the "day level" not at the "fish level:
Treatment and time comparisons for both experiments were done using two-
way ANOVA and Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference (FPLSD)
procedures (Petersen 1985). A significant treatment by time interaction term
in the ANOVA would indicate the cortisol Cor glucose or lactate) level
response curve over time was different for different treatments. A
significant treatment effect would indicate ttwfrfhe time response curves for
one of the treatments was shifted higher or lower than for the others. A
significant time effect would indicate that at least one of the measured times
had a higher or lower level than did the others. If a significant interaction
was detected, treatment and time effects would not be analyzed.
75
Appendix Table 12. Continued Plasma Cortisol
Pre Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour 0 2 4 6 18 42
Bypass
Net 89.7 70.3
99.4 251.6 230.8 209.8 158.2 113.6 59.8 ·206.0 163.6 147.6 112.4 110.5
--------------------------------------------------------
ANOVA
Source
Treatment
Time
Tr X Ti
Error
Total
Bypass
df
1 6 6
42 55
Mean -----------------
Pre 89.8• Hour 0 99.4·
:Hour 42 113.6•
Sum of Squares
22874.9 164475.2
6165.3 20814.2
214329.5
Net
Mean Square
22874.9 27412.5 1027.5
495.6
Mean -----------------
Hour 0 59.8• Pre 70.3· Hour 42 110. 5
F
46.2 55.3
2.1
b
Hour 18 158.2 b Hour 18 112.4 .b
Hour 6 209.8 C: Hour 6 147.6 C
Hour 4 230.8 c:d Hour 4 163.6 C
Hour 2 251.6 d Hour 2 206.0 d
----------------- -----------------
Hour ,four Hour Hour Hour Hour
0 2 4 6 18 42
Acute
Chronic
115.t l44.7 240.2 194.3 155.1 178.2115.6 284.2 326.6 331.8 380.5
ANOVA
Source
Treatment
Time
Tr X Ti
Error
Total
Acute
df Sum of
Squares
3 5640.4 1 269231.3 3 89514.4
72 220014.3 79 587073.3
Mean
Square
1880.1 269231.3
29838.1 3188.6
Mean Chronic Mean ----------------- -----------------
Hour 0 115.6" Hour 0 115.6" Hour 18 155.l"b Hour 2 284.2 Hour 42 178.2 b Hour 4 326.6 Hour 6 194.3 be Hour 6 331.8 Hour 4 240.2 e Hour 18 380.5 Hour 2 244.7 C
----------------- -----------------
F
0.5 84 •. 4
?•LI
b
b be e
p
<0.0001 <O ()001
o.0769
p
0.6239 <O. 0001. �U.OOUl.
Appendix Table 12. Continued
Pre Hour
0
76
Plasma Glucose
Hour
2
Hour
4
Hour
6
Hour
18
Hour
. 42
Bypass
Net
85.8
84.5
70.1
75.3
98.5
85.4
109.0 125.0 122.3 94.1
96.0 96.9 92.7 86.2
ANOVA
Source
Treatment
Time
Tr X Ti
Error
Total
Bypass
df
1
6
6
42
55
Mean -----------------
Sum of
Squares
2204.4
8728.9
1985.7
2758.0
15676.7
Net
Mean
Square
2204.4
1454.8
330.9
65.7
Mean -----------------
F
33.6
22.2
5.0
Hour 0 70.1· Hour 0 75.3·
Pre 85.8
Hour 42 94.1
Hour 2 98.5
Hour 4 109.0
Hour 18 122.3
Hour 6 125.0 -----------------
Acute
Chronic
ANOVA
Source
Treatment
Time
Tr X Ti
Error
Total
Acute
Hour 0
89.7
89.7
df
3
1
3
72
79
Mean -----------------
Hour 42 84.8--
b Pre 84.5•b
be Hour 2 85.4•bc
Cd Hour 42 86.2•bc de Hour 18 92.7 be
•-1' Hour 4 96.0 be
-1' Hour 6 96.9 C
-----------------
Hour
2
Hour 4
Hour
6
Hour
18
Hour
42
114.8 116.0 123.6 118.4 84.8
108.3 153.6 165.6 195.4
Sum of
Squares
19548.8
25279.9
16672. 3
66579.0
126476.7
Mean
Square
6515.3
25279.9
5557.4
964.9
Chronic Mean -----------------
Hour 0 89. 7""
F
6.8
26.2
5.8
Hour 0 89.7#,.b Hour 2 108.3""
Hour 2 114.8 b C: Hour 4 153.6 b
Hour 4 116.0 b C: Hour 6 165.6 b
Hour 18 118. 4 C Hour 18 195.4 C
Hour 6 123.6 C:
----------------- -----------------
p
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0006
p
0.0005
<0.0001
0.0014
77
Appendix Table 12. Continued Plasma Lactic Acid
Pre Hour
0
Hour
2
Hour 4
Hour
6
Hour
18
Hour
42 ----------------------- · - -------------------------------
Bypass
Net
44.6 41.2
140.7 66.5 75.1 39.5
43.8 39.7
42.0 41.7
52.0 40.8
59.4 53.1
--------------------------------------------------------
ANOVA
Source
Treatment
Time
Tr X Ti
Error
Total
Bypass
df
1
6 6
42 55
Mean
Sum of
Squares
3965.3 26971.2 6490.1 1941. 1
39368.0
Ne.t
Mean
Square
3965.3 4495.2 1081.7
46.2
Mean ----------------- -----------------
Hour 6 42.0'"' Hour 2 39. 5'"'
Hour 4 43.8 .. b Hour 4 39.7 .. Pre 44.6"b Hour 18 40.9 .. Hour 18 52.0 be Pre 41.2 ... Hour 42 59.4 Cd Hour 6 41.7 ..
F p
85.8 <0.0001 97.2 /<0.0001 23,4 I (0,0001
Hour 2 66.5 d Hour 42 53.1 b
Hour 0 140.7 • Hour 0 75.1 'C
----------------- -----------------
Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour
0 2 4 6 18 42
--------------------------------------------------
Acute
Chronic
ANOVA
Source
Treatment
Time
Tr X Ti
Error
Total
Acute
39.3 39.3
df
3
1
3 72 79
Mean -----------------
Hour 6 34.9 .... Hour 0 39.3· Hour 4 40.4· Hour 42 45.6 ... b
Hour 18 47,7.-.b
Hour 2 59.8 b-----------------
59.8 40.4 45.2 53.8
Sum of
Squares
5616.4 3944.0 7750.0
20569.3 37588.9
34.9 54.8
Mean
Square
1872. 1 3944.0 2583.3
298.1
47.7 89.7
Chronic Mean -----------------
Hour 0 39.3• Hour 2 45.2· Hour 4 53 .8'"'
Hour 6 54.8 .. Hour 18 89.8
-----------------
45.6
F p
6.3 0.0008 13.2 0.0005 8.7 0.0001
b
Appendix Table 13. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery coho salmon a passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1992; at tailwater elevation 9.5 to 10.5 and water temperature 15.3 °C.
Delayed Recove!)'. informationb mortality
ERG Total Delayed ofdescaled Release information• open time Catch Descaled Injuredd Dead mortali� • & injured'
Date/Rep. Site/Status8 No. Hrs.h Hrs.h Minh No. % % % % % %
Test conditions: downwell elev. 58.5 ft, and sampling room conduit empty 13 Oct By l7B 400 1318 1330 12 319 79.8 48.9 2.2 1.0
1 Downwell/0 400 1321 1330 9 391 97.8 18.4 1.3 .3 Conduit 399 1321 1330 9 379 95.0 14.5 0.8 0.0 Net 400 1320 1330 10 391 97.8 1.0 0.0 1.5
14 Oct By17B 400 1302 1317 15 340 85.0 28.5 0.9 17.5 11.2 48.2 2 Downwell/0 400 1305 1317 12 372 93.0 25.5 0.8 9.0 14.8 53.3
Conduit 400 1305 1317 12 401 100.0 15.2 0.0 7.5 2.8 55.1 Net 398 1306 1317 11 391 98.2 1.8 0.3 10.8 27.4 2.0
15 Oct By17B 400 1322 374 93.5 22.5 1.3 40.0 14.3 51.0 3 Downwell/0 400 1322 385 96.3 16.1 1.3 7.8 13.5 70.2
Conduit 400 1322 380 95.0 22.5 1.8 9.8 10.9 53.4 Net 400 1309 1322 13 392 98.0 8.7 1.0 1.3 8.1 30.9
16 Oct By17B 400 1235 1246 11 329 82.3 38.0 1.2 1.0 0.0 29.6 4 Downwell/0 233 1238 1246 8 228 97.9 14.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 14.3
Conduit 400 1238 1246 8 376 94.0 21.5 1.1 0.0 2.0 16.6 Net 325 1240 1246 6 327 100.0 14.9 0.3 0.3 2.1 8.2
Total / (Mean sguare error) 1 - 4 By 17B 1,600 12.7(1.2) 85.2(3.0) 34.5(5.8) 1.4(0.3) 14.9(9.2) 8.5(4.3) 42.9(6.7)
Downwell/0 1,433 9.7(1.2) 96.3(1.1) 18.7(2.4) 0.9(0.3) 4.2(2.4) 9.8(4.4) 45.9(16.6) Conduit 1,599 9.7(1.2) 96.0(1.4) 18.4(2.1) 0.9(0.4) 4.3(2.5) 5.2(2.8) 41.7(12.6) Net 1,523 10.0(1.5) 98.5(0.5) 6.6(3.3) 0.4(0.2) 3.5(2.0) 12.5(7.6) 13.7(8.8)
Appendix Table 13. Continued.
Delayed Recoven'. informationb mortality
ERG Total Delayed ofdescaled Release information< open time Catch Descaled lnjuredd Dead mortali!Y e & injured r
Date/Rep. Site/Status8 No. Hrs.h Hrs.h Minh No. % % % % % %
Test conditions: downwell elev. 56.5 ft, and sampling room conduit empty 13 Oct By17B 399 1443 1454 11 327 81.9 14.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 30.8
1 DownwelVO 400 1446 1454 8 376 94.0 6.6 0.0 .8 0.0 20.5 Conduit 400 1446 1454 8 371 92.8 4.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 21.4 Net 400 1445 1454 9 393 98.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 33.3
14 Oct By 17B 400 1425 1440 15 366 91.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.0 25.0 2 DownwelVO 400 1428 1440 12 397 99.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Conduit 400 1428 1440 12 379 94.8 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 20.0 Net __ )
15 Oct By17B 400 1455 1504 9 365 91.3 1.1 0.3 1.5 1.0 16.7 3 DownwelVO 400 1458 1504 6 295 73.8 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 50.0
Conduit 400 1458 1504 6 391 97.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 Net 400 1455 1504 9 388 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
16 Oct By 17B 400 1343 1348 5 347 86.8 0.9 0.3 1.3 0.0 20.0 4 DownwelVO 233 1346 1348 2 218 93.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Conduit 400 1346 1348 2 388 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net 321 1343 1348 5 332 100.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.0
Total /{Mean sguare error} 1-4 By17B 1,599 11.6(4.7) 87.9(2.3) 4.2(3.3) 0.2(0.1) 1.1(0.2) 0.3(0.3) 23.1(3.1)
DownwelVO 1,433 7.0(2.1) 90.2(5.6) 1.8(1.6) 0.1(0.1) 0.5(0.2) 0.0(0) 17.6(12) Conduit 1,600 7.0(2.1) 97.0(0.8) 1.4(1.1) 0.3(0.1) 0.1(0.1) 0.3(0.3) 10.4(6.0) Net 1,121 7.7(1.3) 98.4(0.9) 0.2(0.2) 0.1(0.1) 0.3(0.1) 0.4(0.4) 11.1(11)
Appendix Table 13. Continued.
a Subyearling coho salmon obtained from Cascade Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife); mean fork length 110.7 mm. b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number. c Site codes are By 17B = water surface of bypass system collection channel at north end (elevation 66 ft); Downwell = water surface 10 m
upstream from downwell or directly into the downwell during non-overflow tests (elevation 60 ft); Conduit = through a 30-m, 76-mm dia. hose 20 m downstream from the 1.2-m dia. 90 degree elbow (elevation 39 ft); Net = surface release into recovery net.
d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.
e Approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held for 48-hour delayed mortality. r All descaled and injured fish plus a few uncompromised fish were held for 48-h delayed mortality.g O indicates normal conditions with water overflowing into the downwell which caused air entrainment; NO indicates no water overflowing
into the downwell wherein no air was entrained. h Many times are estimated, but errors are no greater than 2 minutes unless noted. Generally, releases were timed to provide similar times of
entrance into the trap-net for the average fish of each comparison group. --- represents that data were not available. Due to a water system failure, no fish were released for this treatment.
00 0
Appendix Table 14. Direct assessment of descaling, injury, and mortality among hatchery chinook salmons passing through the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, October 1992; at tailwater elevation 10-10.5 ft and water temperature 15.8-16.5°C.
Delayed Recov eD'. infonnationb mortality
ERG Total Delayed ofdes caled Releas e information< open time Catch Des caled lnjuredd Dead mortality• & injured r
Date/Rep. Site/Status8 No. Hrs.h Hrs.h Minh No. % % % % % %
Tes t conditions: downwell elev. 58.0 ft, and sampling room conduit full 200ct By llA 200 1251 1328 23 14 7.0 7.1 0.0 92.8 0.0 0.0
1 By17B 200 1320 1328 8 136 68.0 15.4 0.0 7.3 0.0 5.0 DownwelVO 200 1323 1328 5 192 96.0 9.4 0.5 3.6 1.9 7.7 Net 200 1320 1328 8 199 99.5 17.6 0.0 0.0 4.1 10.3
21 Oct By17B 200 1244 1252 8 149 74.5 11.4 0.0 16.8 2.0 5.0 2 DownwelVO 200 1247 1252 5 197 98.5 10.1 0.5 8.1 3.0 17.4
DownwelVNO 200 1239 1252 13 189 94.5 6.8 1.1 48.1 10.9 71.4 Net 200 1239 1252 13 202 100.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 3.8 33.3
22 Oct By17B 200 1258 1318 20 158 79.0 2.5 0.0 86.7 35.3 55.6 3 DownwelVO 199 1301 1318 17 196 98.0 4.1 0.0 76.5 5.4 25.0
DownwelVNO 200 1306 1318 12 192 96.0 12.0 0.5 4.7 4.5 11.1 Net 200 1258 1318 20 203 100.0 1.0 0.0 8.5 2.2 0.0
23 Oct By14A 139 i 1225 1251 26 27j 19.4 22.0 0.0 29.6 4.0 25.0 4 Byl7B 200 1246 1251 5 128 64.0 11.7 0.0 2.3 2.1 0.0
DownwelVO 200 1249 1251 2 178 89.0 4.5 1.7 0.0 3.9 25.0 Net 200 1246 1251 5 197 98.5 2.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 33.3
23 Oct DownwelVNO 197 1350 1354 4 178 90.3 6.2 0.6 0.0 2.0 15.4 5 Net 200 1351 1354 3 219 100.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 11.4 0.0
Total / (Mean sguare error} 1-5 By 1 l/14A 339 24.5(1.5) 13.2(6.2) 14.6(7.5) 0.0(0) 61.2(31.6) 2.0(2.0) 12.5(12.5)
By17B 800 10.3(3.3) 71.4(3.3) 10.3(2.7) 0.0(0) 28.3(19.7) 9.9(8.5) 16.4(13.1) DownwelVO 799 7.3(3.3) 95.4(2.2) 7.0(1.6) 0.7(0.4) 22.1(18.2) 3.6(0.7) 18.8(4.1) DownwelVNO 597 9.7(2.8) 93.6(1.7) 8.3(1.8) 0.7(0.2) 17.6(15.3) 5.8(2.7) 32.6(19.4) Net 1,000 9.8(3.1) 99.6(0.3) 4.5(3.1) 0.0(0) 3.3(1.5) 4.3(2.5) 15.4(7.6)
Appendix Table 14. Continued.
Delayed Recovea informationb mortality
ERG Total Delayed ofdescaled Release information< open time Catch Descaled lnjuredd Dead mortalih'. e & injured r
Date/Rep. Site/Status8 No. Hrs.h Hrs.h Minh No. % % % % % %
Test conditions: downwell elev. 55.0 ft, and sampling room conduit full 200ct By llA 200 1446 1536 50 81 40.5 1.2 0.0 22.2 6.4 66.7
1 Byl7B 200 1530 1536 6 153 76.5 9.8 1.3 15.0 1.9 15.8 Downwell/0 198 1533 1536 3 208 100.0 1.9 0.5 6.2 0.0 16.6 Net 197 1530 1536 6 200 100.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 50.0
Test conditions: downwell elev. 58.5 ft, and sampling room conduit empty 21 Oct Byl7B 200 1355 1407 12 138 69.0 8.0 0.0 25.4 6.1 36.4
1 Downwell/0 200 1358 1407 9 204 100.0 9.3 1.5 15.7 2.0 33.3 Downwell/NO 200 1344 1407 23 191 95.5 2.1 0.0 70.7 12.2 25.0 Net 200 1345 1407 22 200 100.0 3.0 0.0 32.5 2.0 50.0
220ct By 17B 197 1416 1428 12 181 91.9 5.0 0.6 53.0 2.1 30.0 2 Downwell/0 199 1419 1428 9 205 100.0 9.5 2.0 24.6 7.8 18.8
Downwell/NO 199 1422 1428 6 198 99.5 5.0 0.5 6.0 2.0 21.4 Nt 200 1416 1428 12 205 100.0 4.0 0.5 8.0 0.0 37.5
23 Oct Downwell/NO 200 1441 1445 4 183 91.5 2.7 0.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 3 Nt 200 1443 1445 2 205 100.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
Total I (Mean sguare error} 1-3 By l7B 397 12.0(0) 80.5(11.5) 6.5(1.5) 30.3(0.3) 39.2(13.8) 4.1(2.0) 33.2(3.2)
Downwell/0 399 9.0(0) 100.0(0) 9.4(0.1) 1.8(1.4) 20.2(4.5) 4.9(2.9) 26.1(7.3) Downwell/NO 599 11.0(6.0) 95.5(2.3) 3.3(0.9) 0.3(0.2) 26.7(22.0) 4.7(3.8) 15.5(7.8)
Net 600 12.0(5.8) 100.0(0) 2.5(1.0) 0.2(0.2} 14.0(9.4) 0.7(0.7) 29.2(15)
Appendix Table 14. Continued.
a Subyearling chinook salmon from Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery, originally tag loss sample from Bonneville passage survival study; mean fork length 132.1 mm.
b To avoid bias from escapement, percentages for descaling and injury were calculated using recovery number rather than release number. c Site codes are By 1 lA, 14A, and 17B = water surface of bypass system collection channel at south, middle, and north portions (elevation 66 ft);
Downwell = water surface 10 m upstream from downwell or directly into the downwell during non-overflow tests (elevation 60 ft); Conduit =
through a 30-m, 76-mm dia. hose 20 m downstream from the 1.2-m dia. 90 degree elbow (elevation 39 ft); Net= surface release into recovery net. d Since individual fish were occasionally both descaled and injured, these numbers should not be added to obtain the total number of damaged fish.e Approximately 100 healthy fish from each release site were held for 48-hour delayed mortality. ' All descaled and injured fish plus a few uncompromised fish were held for 48-hour delayed mortality.' 0 indicates normal conditions with water overflowing into the downwell which caused air entrainment; NO indicates no water overflowing into the
downwell wherein no air was entrained. h Many times are estimated, but errors are no greater than 2 minutes unless noted. Generally, releases were timed to provide similar times of entrance
into the trap-net for the average fish of each comparison group. There were 60 fish impinged on the watering screen, resulting in a lower number offish in this group's treatment. Low recoveries due in part to fish delaying in bypass system.
()) w
-